I still do not agree with the people that believe the spread offense (pass first) is the best style offense to go with. Sure they're flashy but once again the run first team prevails over the *flashy* team in the national championship game. sure the flashy teams make a lot of noise but it always seems the traditional style teams prevail when it matters most in the end.
STATS!!!!! winner's on the left
2014 National championship-OSU 72% run vs ORE 46% run
2013 National championship- FSU 47% run vs AUB 66% run*
2012 National championship- ALA 62% run vs ND 35% run
2011 National championship- ALA 51% run vs LSU 61% run**
2010 National championship-AUB 59% run vs ORE 43% run
2009 National championship- ALA 81% run vs TEX 40% run
2008 National championship-FLA 59% run vs OKLA 41% run
2007 National championship-LSU 64% run vs OSU 54% run
2006 National championship FLA 54% run vs OSU 62% run**
2005 National championship TX- 47% run vs USC 50% run*
*winner had below 50% rushing play selection ratio
**winner had lower rushing play selection ratio than the loser but still more than 50%
Of the 10 previous championship games the winner had a higher rushing play selection than 50% in 8/10 games. FSU of 2013 and TX of 2005 being the cases where the winner was at less than 50%. I believe that dominating the line trenches will give the team a much higher chance of winning the game compared to being dominant through the air. There are multiple ways to look at this data i'm certain for example one could say "well the winner was ahead so they wanted to melt the clock so they just kept running the ball." While that's most likely true, I believe that the those teams got ahead because they were dominating the line play. Also spread offenses still pass first even while ahead because thats just what they do. I personally do not approve of teams (especially our beloved Hokies) shifting toward more spread offenses. I do not believe its the best choice. Spread offenses are popping up more and more throughout the country but the strong majority of the time we see the national champion being a run first team. With, hopefully, all our running backs returning healthy next year and the improvement of our offensive line continues I would love to see us maintain at least a 65-70% rushing play selection ratio.
Thoughts? Counter arguments? UVA sux?...okay that last one isnt a question.
Comments
I think you are mixing up two different ideas. Spread doesn't mean pass first and it certainly doesn't mean run first either. Spread is designed to open up the field, get playmakers in space, and thin out a defense and the number of defenders near the ball. That could be by running or passing. Really though, Urban uses a spread offense and has since his days at Florida.
i think you're right now that i think about it. I just notice that more often than not spread offenses are those that pass more than run. It's true you can still have a run first philosophy within a spread offense
I actually think we would be better suited to run the spread more often than not. Our biggest issues are OL blocking, and by spreading the defense out, you take at least one or more LBs out of the equation for these guys to block on a given play, giving us a better chance of a play working, whether that be a run or a pass.
I would have agreed with you right up until the day Stacy Searels was hired. VT has been a failed experiment in trying to run power behind a line suited for spread since 2006. But after watching our line inflate like Violet Beauregard over the course of Searels' first season, I think we finally have an OL coach to design a power running game around.
It works when its executed well and is blocked well. These teams also had a passing game that could make defenses pay during games where they sold out to stop the run. But most importantly, they all had Offensive Lines that opened up big holes for these guys to run through so that they would routinely get to the second level without being touched. It doesn't matter what our run to pass ratio is if the Offensive Line continues to struggle to the level we've seen in recent years.
And by the way, Ohio State is a team that runs the spread, they just run a lot out of it. Spread doesn't have to mean passing the ball all over the place, it's a concept to try and gain yourself an advantage by spreading the defense out to allow more room for the offense to operate.
I'll be happy with any offense that scores enough points to win every game!
I like the way you think.
Abstract thinking, it'll get after ya!
#Beamerball
I would say after watching the Chip Kelly offense for my Eagles the last couple of seasons, the Oregon offense that he left them with and is employed there is more run first than pass. Thats a common misconception, to this day,as to how Oregon utilizes their athletes. It just tends to be they end up with number of monster pass plays as a result of teams trying to stop the run (and they had a QB in Mariota who could not have been more perfect to run that particular scheme). Same with Ohio St., Meyer has always run some variation of the spread. The moment Jones came into the lineup, and his ability to gain yards running between the tackles, its no coincidence that you saw a guy like Elliot go from having 4 100 yard games all season to having 3 straight 200+ yard games.
I would love to see the % of passing by teams before and after they fell behind by a significant margin. Monday nights game is a great example, after a certain point Oregon really could not afford to run, whereas last years NCG you see a much higher run % by Auburn (another spread team) because that game was very much in the balance until literally the very end.
I was thinking Zeke's success was also due to Cardale's cannon.
running the ball first works when you have a competent Offensive Line....Not 2 Freshmen a D III DT and a new Center every other game.
Are you looking at the rushing-passing breakdown for just the championship games? Cuz the winning team is most likely to be the one trying to work the clock in the 4th quarter by calling running plays - whether or not they're succesful at gaining yardage.
A better way to do it would be to look at the champions' season stats for pass-run ratio.
This was my first thought. Also teams that dominate most of their games are going to skew toward more running plays then teams that have close games. Looking at season stats over the years may show somewhat of a trend though.
Also, Oregon has been a run-first team since Chip Kelly was there. This year they averaged 42.9 run plays per game and only 31.6 pass attempts.
And the poster's point about winning in the trenches is what wins the game is true. I don't think anyone would argue that ever. Sometimes having a special playmaker can make-up for losing the line-of-scrimmage. But looking only at run/pass percentage isn't going to reveal much we don't already know.
This was exactly my first thought. Its hard to gather anything from a run/pass stand point from one game becasuse of the different situations a team may be in. If you are leading late, you are going to run to kill clock and if you are down you are going to throw it (most likely). Looking at these stats over the course of a season would help get a better idea.
This is an interesting take. I like seeing us try to put a few numbers together for a different slant on the scenario, thank you Devonte.
At first, I wonder how they measure runs. In 2005, Vince Young surely took off and ran a number of times when the play call was a pass (including the game-winning TD). Does that count as a run or a pass? Would that change the numbers? Curious look.
In general, it looks like the trends hold - favoring the run game generally corresponds with championships. Using stats from cfbstats.com, we can go back to 2008, so I included season-long stats of the two teams in the BCS Title game, and all 4 from this year's playoff. FSU last year is the only real exception; all winners had even yardage between rush and pass, or favored rush, and the only other case in which the loser favored the rush more than the winner was LSU in 2011. This year's results loosely correlate with success in their respective games (OSU > Oregon, OSU > Bama but the game was close, Oregon >> FSU in a stomping).
Apologies for formatting; I'll probably come back and make a proper table later. Winner in bold, with yardage as rush/pass/total and corresponding rush%/pass%:
2014
OSU (3967/3707/7674) 51.7% / 48.3%
Oregon (3518/4687/8205) 42.8% / 57.1%
Alabama (2893/3890/6783) 42.7% / 57.3%
FSU (1933/4246/6179) 31.2% / 68.7%
2013
FSU (2844/4423/7267) 39.1% / 60.9%
Auburn (4596/2422/7018) 65.5% / 34.5%
2012
Alabama (3185/3052/7267) 51.1% / 48.9%
ND (2462/2896/5358) 45.9% / 54.1%
2011
Alabama (2788/2797/5585) 49.9% / 50.1%
LSU (2836/2135/4971) 57.1% / 42.9%
2010
Auburn (3987/3002/6989) 57.0% / 43.0%
Oregon (3739/3160/6899) 54.2% / 45.8%
2009
Alabama (3011/2631/5642) 53.4% / 46.6%
Texas (2066/3831/5897) 35.0% / 65.0%
2008
Florida (3236/2995/6231) 51.9% / 48.1%
Oklahoma (2779/4891/7670) 36.2% / 63.8%
Of course, overall success depends on a lot of factors, but it is an interesting observation.
FSU of 2013 really is an outlier haha, thanks for the more in depth stats!
Yardage is important, but I think play choice might matter a little bit more, It's easier to be explosive* in the pass game, so yards tend to stack up faster. It's still interesting to see how teams compare though, and how strong a correlation there is between higher run yard % and championship winning %.
*My reasoning, besides observation, is this: On an average pass play, the wide receiver just needs to beat a corner and possibly a safety. A tight end or running back might only have to beat a linebacker and safety. Either way, only 1 or 2 people and the offense is a good throw and catch away from a long pass play. When running, a 7 man box against 5 or 6 lineman introduces a minimum 3 extra people that could stop a long play from happening. When you add in the fact that most defenses will default to stopping the run first, I feel there is an automatic bias towards long pass plays.
I am still digging into the stats a bit. Play selection would be perfect, but I don't have a source for it (admittedly not trying super hard) so I'm also looking at first downs gained by rushing vs. passing, yards per rush vs. yards per pass, etc. If I can compile it all, I'll update here.
I see your point, and there's definitely some merit to it. But the counterargument is - sure a long pass play is explosive, but that also relies on (often) a low-percentage throw being complete. About 50% of the time (or more), the deep ball hits the ground. But of course, there are screens that just have long YAC that blow up the overall yardage. But screens require a lot of good blocking and beating the rest of the defense. If my team is good enough to get 10 yards on 3 runs, I'm going to run if I can afford to (based on game time and situation). If I need to move, I throw for the 10. The best teams can probably do damn near anything they want because both phases of their game have to be respected.
You're right about it being low percentage: even with a wide open player we see bad throws and drops every week. Just for shits and giggles, here's play choice over the season for the playoff teams and VT:
edit: I didn't catch it at first, but our pass/gm rank is actually 46th, not 34.
Very cool, thanks! It seems like play-calling follows the same general trend, but perhaps normalizes for big plays, as you had said.
I was thinking about screens vs runs, too, wondering which has a better chance of exploding. They're both "designed" to be conservative yard gainers, but any play can go for 6. If everyone is blocked on a run, there isn't always a second line of defense. Screen passes start in space, but there's also a sideline bracketing the player in one direction, and defenses generally don't crowd the box on a trips or 5 wide formation.
I had to read this about 6 times before I realized you were referring to 6 points and not 6 yards
I didn't realize it until I read your comment. Thank you for clarifying for us slow folks.
To be fair, in our offense, each is about as equally unlikely as the other
Really nice work. I wonder how the proportion of run:pass plays stacks up against the yardage proportions. Typically you have to run the ball more times than you have to pass it to get equivalent yardage.
Your yardage numbers for 2011 Alabama don't add up and definitely don't fit the percentages you listed.
Good catch, thanks! No idea where that rushing number came from...must have been a serious case of multi-line dyslexia.
You put 2010 Auburn's total twice.
Damn that 2011 Alabama team was an image of symmetry.
I didn't get past this line...spread =/= pass first
Urban's offense uses plenty of spread concepts. It is not a traditional I-formation power running offense
I didnt mean it in the sense that the spread offense always means pass first, mostly just referencing to the pass first mantra. but I'm unaware of a pro style i formation pass first offense
I didn't really mean to cut you down...there has been lots of debate the last few months about spread offense vs (insert some formation or concept here) offense....
Oregon is Georgia Tech with flashy uniforms. I know, nothing similar about the offenses right? But they do have similar pros and cons.
Meyer used the term "power spread" offense to describe the OSU when correcting a reporter that called his O a spread option.
I think the OSU O is a little different than his offenses at Florida in the sense that he utilizes a bigger back and is able to run more effectively between the tackles and in the red zone.
I really think this is something that developed as a result of having Carlos Hyde on the team when he arrived and seeing how effective he was as Meyer was recruiting players and transitioning to his system. I personally think the big back will be a permanent feature of a Meyer O.
I think it has more to do with Urban developing his current offense around Tim Tebow's unique skill set while at Florida.
Shouldn't this be measured against the type of defense the opposing side uses? Not just the offense? It's not as if the two offenses are out there together.
It seems to me that the more flashy the offense the less that team's defense is able to contain true power running. That is in no way researched. Just seems that way somehow.
I'd say this has less to do with scheme and more talent level involved. All the national champions are teams that bring in loads of 5* freak athletes who can physically outdo any opponent. If you can do that (like Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Ohio State can) then a run-heavy power style will work. If you're working with 3 and 4 star guys who can't win every physical battle, you need to have a scheme to overcome that limitation. That's why the "flashy" teams from non-traditional powers (like Oregon or TCU) do so well with the spread, it downplays their biggest disadvantage. Those teams happen to lose to elite competition in championships because of the simple fact that it's very, very hard to beat superior athletes, especially when they have time to prepare for your game.
The real question in my mind is, can teams that aren't stacked with non-elite athletes win in a traditional, run heavy power offense? Wisconsin and Nebraska keep trying, but I can't think of any major successes. The champions may tend to be run-heavy power teams, but I would say that's simply a correlation, the causation is that they are all traditional powerhouses that recruit the best athletes in the country.
Exactly. It's a math equation. The offense and defense both have 11 players. On a traditional I-formation hand off, the defense will have two players unblocked (2 of the offenses players aren't blocking, the quarterback and the runner). If your offensive line is talented enough to win their battles consistently and your passing game is respectable enough to prevent those two extra defenders from overcommitting to the run, you can expect a consistent ground game. Factor in a running back who can make those unblocked defenders miss, then your ground game will be both consistent and explosive. Having the talent to turn a very low risk play (pro-style ground game) into an explosive one is a huge advantage mathematically.
When you don't have those athletes, you need to turn to higher risk plays... Having Quarterbacks do the zone read allows him to "block" one of those 2 defenders by reading his reactions, but it also requires an extra step (the read) than a traditional Pro-style run. Adding in extra "execution requirements" always increases the risk that a play blows up (what if the QB reads wrong and hands off to a running back who gets crushed for a 4 yard loss, or worse fumbles it) but it also increases the odds that the running back takes it to the house (he'll only have to make one unblocked defender miss instead of two). Coaches like Chip Kelly, Urban Meyer, and even Paul Johnson know that this is the case so they try to reduce the risk by reducing the size of their playbook. This allows them to get more practice reps on their reads, increasing their execution success and reducing their risk.
Now when these high-risk/high-reward offenses have an athletic advantage, they look almost invincible. If you're a defensive coordinator and your defensive line/linebackers can't get off blocks because their getting mauled by 5 future NFL linemen, and your free hitter can't make the tackle in space because a first round running back is touting the rock... what can you do? Throw more numbers into the box and just pray that your single coverage holds up? What if you're going up against future NFL WR's who just shrug off the bump and run coverage your 2* corners are attempting? It's a no win proposition.
However, when these offenses run into elite defenses... the math suddenly turns against them. When that #1 recruit defensive tackle is eating alive your guard and you have no choice but to double team, suddenly your back to having two unblocked defenders even when relying on the higher-risk zone read. Oh, and your 1st round running back? Now he's not running over mid-level Pac 12 defenders, he's coming face to face with elite linebackers in the hole or he's getting chased down by Safeties who are faster than him and willing to make the tackle. As an offensive coordinator it's time to turn to another tactic... too bad you have a shallow playbook because you spent the past 12 months getting 100 zone-read reps in practice instead of installing some advanced pass concepts.
SIDE NOTE
This is why tempo is so overrated. Those elite offenses which rely on a small playbook with great execution are going up tempo because they know that the math is in their favor. The only way they won't score a ton of points is if they get unlucky with the math... either a couple of holding calls costs them a few drives, or a botched snap, or a lesser athlete actually makes the play in space against a better one... Small sample sizes increase the odds of losing if your offense is better than their defense.
However, if you don't have enough talent where you can just expect your players to win their battles the majority of the time, it's not in your interest to go uptempo. Not only is the surprise factor reduced because so many teams go uptempo nowadays, but it's a bad mathematical proposition. You have a better chance of winning if you slow the game down (in essence, reducing the sample size) and hoping that one of your guys can make the right play at the right time to "steal" a win.
I wish announcers would talk with even this level of detail (No Xs and Os, just simple math and concepts). Too often all you hear is "well Oregon, they just play so fast. But we'll see how they do against the big boys of Ohio St."
What happened in the Rose Bowl then?
Oregon was the more talented team, and FSU also played their worst game of the season.