Throughout my years as a fan of Hokie football, one common theory I've heard is that we should run the ball more; that rushing equals wins. I decided to see if the numbers back that theory up., looking at play calls through three quarters a game, for the last four years.
Why did I choose those parameters? It is well established that given a fourth quarter lead, CFB goes conservative and tries to kill the clock. Conversely, given a deficit, we throw more. Finally, four years gives us two years of Lefty, and two of the previous regime.
The Numbers:
Run>Pass: 19-12 (.613)
Pass>Run: 12-7 (.632)
Balance: 2-1 (.667)
20-24 carries: 5-8 (.385)
25-29 carries: 15-6 (.714)
30+ carries: 11-5 (.687)
20-24 passes: 13-9 (.591)
25-29 passes: 10-3 (.769)
30+ passes: 4-5 (.444)
According to these numbers, our best chances of winning occur when we have 25-29 carries AND passes balanced, and if we were to have a higher number either way, we should prefer the higher number be in pass attempts.
Superlatives:
Most Rushes in Win: 40 vs LOLUVA, 2012
Most Rushes in Loss: 41 vs Miami, 2012
Most Passes in Win: 33 vs BC, 2011
Most Passes in Loss: 35(tie) 2011 ACCCG vs Clemson, vs UNC, 2012
Comments
Scorching hot take
Ah yes, it's so simple. If we'd just always run it more than pass it, we could finish 8-4 every season!!! #maths
EDIT: to be fair, I posted this when the post ended with:
So my #maths made a little more sense
I guess you could say if we ran it 66.6% of the time we would be 8-4 right?
I'm on mobile and this article ends here for me:
The Numbers:
Run>Pass: 19-12 (.613)
Run
Is anyone else seeing that?
That's the entirety
Never start something you can't
Agre
LO
Paul Johnson approves this post.
I just want to punch him in the mouth.
yeah no doubt...Paul Johnson has to be one of the 7 Wonders of college football...that face is just...
well I'll say this...maybe he's such a jerk because his mother never loved him. Not even a mother could love a face like that...poor fella
i wanna dive at his knees
Why not do both at the same time? That's legal, right?
almost laughed out loud
Also, if your score is higher than theirs you will win almost 100% of the time.
That is a good Maddenism but you left out that Brett Favre is the best athlete in the history of the world.
If you Favre more than the other team Favres you will Favre.
It's as easy as 1, 2, 3, Favre.
So... No comparison between the run vs pass and winning % with Lefty and with the previous regime?
A decent thought, but... you're going to need way more math-ing to get anything conclusive out of this look.
Wow, everyone is being a bit of an asshole to OP. This is how you deter new posters. Yes, it needs more analysis to really mean something, but he put work into this and I appreciate it.
just having some fun with it but the orginal post didnt have the statitics to back it up. not directed at OP or to be a jerk!
I gave legs!
My apologies. HTML has never been my strong suit.
All in good fun.
Hahaha. I thought as much. Way better, and surprising that we actually do worse once the rushes get way up there. Your sample size isn't huge, but it looks like "balanced" is the way to go.
If you have NFL talent at running back, you will win 10 games a year.
If you don't, get ready for a 7 win season.
If your defense gives you 3-and-outs, you will be able to pass and run more.
And as always, remember, "This offense is not trying to score every possession"
I'm not sure that "the offense is not trying to score on every possession". If the offense scores a TD on every possession, then won't you win every game? Ok maybe the last possession with a substantial lead you just want to run out the clock...
I think that when people say, "not trying to score every possession" it's a bad way of saying that "football is a game of field position." I'm sure every Offensive Coordinator in the country would love to score on every possession, but given that this isn't usually going to happen, I would put forth that most offensive plays aren't designed to score, they're designed to gain a chunk of yards before an unblocked defender can get into position to make a tackle. If an offensive series is starting at your own 1 yard line, I would say that the immediate goal of the offensive coordinator's main goal is picking up enough yardage that the punter isn't kicking from the back of the end zone, and then to pick up a first down and start changing field position. That doesn't mean that a coordinator won't call a play looking to score in such a situation. Loeffler has been known to call a long pass in such a situation to try and catch the defense off guard, but if a coordinator calls three straight ahead runs in a row in that situation then his goal is probably to avoid a turnover and make sure his punter will have room to get a kick off if they don't get a first down.
"This offense is not trying to score every possession" is a quote from Mike O'Cain during an interview when asked about the offenses woes a few years back.
Edit: I found the article and of course it was Andy. A Q&A with O'Cain after his first season as play caller.
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/03/ocain-qa-part-i-we-probably-needed-throw...
The exact quote is "You know, were not just an offense going out trying to score every time." Obviously, there is more context involved, but that quote seems to have stuck with a lot of Tech fans as indicative of the overly conservative offensive philosophy of the O'CainSpring era.
I never did take that quote as Mike saying we weren't trying to score, but that we were trying to score every drive while also taking the game situation into consideration. Are we up by a more than one score? Did the defense just have a goal line stand after a six minute drive to force a field goal and need a blow? Okay, on this drive we need to bleed clock as well as score, so let's go ground heavy. That sort of thing. It's a valid philosophy, just a terrible way to verbalize the thought.
It also didn't help that Stiney's offenses performed worst when we needed them most.
You know there was a time in the Beamer era when our critics questioned if we knew passing downfield was allowed!
"When you pass, three things can happen and two of them are bad."
I get this, but then I don't get this. I mean, you can have a completion (good), an incompletion (bad only in that you lose a down, which is better than an INT), or an interception (bad).
But running, you can have positive yardage (good), no yardage (bad in that you lose a down), negative yardage (bad), or a fumble (bad). So I feel like the saying should be "When you snap the ball, a lot can happen and 2/3 of them are bad..."
New coaching strategy, never snap the ball since 66% of the time bad things happen.
The Ole Center Sneak.
I knew Stiney had an account here!
I don't agree with it, just posting what Beamer once said about it.
Pride and Joy philosophy. 8 things can happen on a punt, three are great (block, bad snap, return td), two are ok (touchback, good return), three are bad (downed punt, fumbled catch, lost yardage on return)
In addition to what you said...Roughing the passer, holding, Offensive PI, Defensive PI, Face mask
Lol, who the hell said that?
Edit: Nevermind
Woody later said there was a fourth thing that can happen when you pass. You can get fired.
It's not really surprising to me that we're seeing the trend toward doing slightly better with the pass than the run, as your sample coincides with our run game drying up. I'm pretty sure that trend would not hold if we extended back into Tyrod's career and the glut of NFL talent we had at tailback. But, as they say, live in the now.
One question, tho. Did you factor sacks out of your carries per game? Sacks really mess with rushing stats, as evidenced by them masking an improvement by our running backs this year of almost a full yard per carry vs last season.
Sacks were counted as rushes. I argue that we had just as many sacks as scrambles and it is nearly impossible to go back through and count them up without going to video.
Nice work with this topic. Great research.
I see your logic here, and I agree that sacks and undesigned scrambles can both be accepted as offsetting to a degree. The problem is that a sack is actually a called pass play that gets recorded as a rush. I have never liked that. I think statistically sacks should be their own entity, neither pass attempt nor rush, but c'est la vie.
a scramble is also a called pass play that is recorded as a rush attempt and yards. with tyrod the vicks and randall i would argue that they made our rushing stats look alot better than they actually were and visversa with glennon and brewer as they are more likely to take sacks. its really a fine line and hard to account for.
And we aren't even accounting for package plays in the current landscape, where a part of the designed play includes telling the QB, "If it's there, run for it."
Absolutely no doubt that the pocket passers deflate the rushing yardage numbers, but inflate the number of rushing attempts by taking sacks. It's a double whammy. That's why I asked OP if he had included sacks in his rushing attempts.
looks like OP fixed the post, much more worthy submission now!
Anytime someone takes the time for a post like this it's worth an upvote IMO. I don't have the time for that and whether the model is sophisticated or not I appreciate the effort.
agreed, the original post (not sure if you saw it or not because it was edited) ended at here are the numbers and then there were no numbers to back it up. i think everyone was just poking fun at that. once it was edited and the numbers were added in it made alot more sence. i upvoted before the numbers were added and would again if i could once he edited it. again i dont think anyone was trying to be a jerk or anything but its one of the great things about this community is we can poke fun at each other when we make a mistake and no one really gets butt hurt.
echo this. It's all in good fun...until someone yells cake
totally agree and no I didn't see the original post. I just remember kennyhokie getting hurt that people were making a wee bit of fun at his posts and he left the community. That gave me the sads because his posts were barney stinson. so i wanted to give the OP some pick me up, wasn't meant to be a drag on the fun being had or a call out on those having fun.
A lot of these numbers are directly proportionate to how Tech plays early on in a game. If they are down, you can expect them to pass the ball more, and if you're already down, the chances of winning are decreased.
If they are winning, like you said, CFB would like to see them running the football more, and if Tech jumps out to a lead, they usually win, just like any other team in football.
There is some substance to what you are trying to say, though. The Duke game, for example, was close start to finish, but featured Tech running the football more than we had been accustomed to. End result: win.
We also saw Tech running the ball much more (and better) 2004-2011, the 10-win seasons. This could be due to a number of things: better running backs, better offensive line (although the coach certainly wasn't better in Newsome's time), and a better running backs coach.
But, I do partly support your claim that running the football is the key to success. In Tech's offense especially, it is easier to open up the pass with the run than the run with the pass.
For a while I agreed with you. But I think Shane has finally acquitted himself nicely as the running backs coach. Trey Edmunds has shown improvement when healthy and JCC's running with an entirely different style. I think Shane came in at a bad time, when the last of our string of NFL-caliber talent was about to leave. Now that we have some talent back at the position and a gelling O line I expect to see a return of the running game at VT.
I would agree. He certainly is in the process of establishing himself. He's yet to fully establish himself, though. If a running back next season has the kind of season JC did beginning with the Duke game, I'll be a believer.