Run, run, pass

[volsunghawk]

So one of the common complaints around here last season (and one I've seen a bit this offseason) is the desire to reduce the number of times we see the Seahawks with a fresh set of downs, only to run/run/pass into a punting situation. I found myself wondering how often we really did that last season.

So I started poring through the play-by-play results for the 2012 season at pro-football-reference and tried to determine how many times we really found ourselves in that situation and how much blame should be placed on any lack of creativity from the offensive coaching staff. A few notes before I share the results...

• As I was just going by the play-by-play, I counted all of Wilson's scrambles as running plays. I figure this balances with the situations where we ran on 1st down and got another 1st down.
• I did not include downs affected by penalty in the results, though it's clear that a Giacomini personal foul that turns a 2nd and 3 into a 2nd and 18 would clearly affect the playcalling on 2nd down.
• I also did not consider the game situation in the findings... yes, there were times when we were behind and had to throw more near the end of the game. At the same time, there were times when we were ahead and ran on every down to kill clock. I figure those roughly balance, as well.
• Finally, I didn't actually count the run/run/pass numbers. Instead, I only counted the times we ran on both 1st and 2nd down. The situation on 3rd down doesn't seem to be the issue when people complain about overly conservative or predictable offensive playcalling... it's those runs on 1st and 2nd down that are the basis of the complaint - so that's what I counted.

So, how often would you guess we fell into that old run/run pattern? 40% of the time? 50%? More?

As it turns out, we ran on both 1st and 2nd downs 31% of the time last season, counting all regular season and playoff games. Here's the breakdown:

• @ARZ: 7/28 (25%)
  DAL: 12/25 (48%)
  GB: 7/18 (39%)
  @STL: 8/28 (29%)
  CAR: 9/25 (36%)
  NE: 5/23 (22%)
  @SF: 8/21 (38%)
  @DET: 4/26 (15%)
  MIN: 12/29 (41%)
  NYJ: 13/27 (48%)
  @MIA: 7/21 (33%)
  @CHI: 6/32 (19%)
  ARZ: 12/29 (41%)
  @BUF: 7/27 (26%)
  SF: 9/24 (38%)
  STL: 6/24 (25%)
  @WAS: 7/29 (24%)
  @ATL: 6/35 (17%)

I'm sure there's plenty more analysis that can be done on this topic - especially more sophisticated analysis that considers how often this conservative playcalling led to three-and-outs (which I didn't track, but didn't see many of) or takes into consideration game situation - but I figured I'd throw it out there for some discussion.

 

[Jazzhawk]

We often see only what we want to see. Thank you for stating the facts as they are. Not sure what it really does for me personally, but it's good to have this info.

 

[FlyingGreg]

Interesting.

I will say, however, that raw statistics may not be the answer for this. Perhaps it's not the run-run-pass concept as much as it WHEN they would do it (or not).

There seemed like a lot of times in game last season that begged for a change when we were either struggling to move the ball or score points. After re-watching the games, we had a lot of low scoring first half outputs and a lot of multiple series just spinning our wheels. I'm more interested in Bevell/Cable seeing the need to adjust the game plan on the fly than either sticking with or not sticking with the run.

If it's hitting on all cylinders, I don't care if it's run-run-run. The key is to know when to break the rut.

Alas, there's no arguing with how the offense functioned down the stretch.

 

[Scottemojo]

That was a lot of work. Thanks.

I have never complained that the playcalling was predictable. I have complained my fair share, but not about RRP. In fact, I would counter that not only is it not as issue, some RRP is absolutely vital for our play action QB. You can't set up play action if you don't run on first and second down some times.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I was (and still am) one of the most vocal guys about our play calling. That being said, my biggest problem with it wasn't that we had two run plays followed by a pass play, (which, by the way, IS about the most predictable 'generic' set of calls you can make) it's that most of the run plays in those scenarios were simple. We rarely did anything tricky, sneaky, or creative with the run plays in the times we went run-run-pass-punt. Then, we'd go do the same damned thing again sometimes on our very next possession, or the one after.

Repeated failed attempts at simple runs up the gut are what really pissed me off. The read option helped this a fair amount, but we were still doing it @ WAS and ATL.

Volsung, thanks for the percentages. That helps clarify some things; but that is also still a somewhat high overall number, IMO. If I had to guess, (and no way am I willing to put in the work to prove/disprove it) I'd say we probably had a higher number of designed runs between the tackles than any team in the NFL aside from San Francisco; and their run blocking is so good, it's almost unfair to even include them in a list, lol.

I'm fine with run-run-pass if we can be more creative with our running. Less "regular" running plays between the tackles. We've got a QB who can, and will, do it all; let's be more creative, not just with stuff like the pitch to Golden who then throws for a TD to Sidney, but that kind of creativity with running plays, too.

If a defense correctly guesses a run play before the snap, it has a very small chance at succeeding. I really hope to see more creativity.

I'm not kidding when I say that I think our current team can break a new record above the 2007 Patriots one for scoring offense. I hope Bevell rises to the challenge, and Pete doesn't resort to pulling all the starters at halftime again during blowouts.

 

[Bobblehead]

If you score a lot, you put your defense on the field a lot.

I think that has been the problem with teams like the Patriots, The Manning led Colts.. yeah sure they scored a lot, but they gave the opponent plenty of opportunities to score.

We have seen it, how a fresh defense is and how a tired defense is, you put your defense out on the field every 3 or 4 minutes and they will burn up.

I think that is one reason why JS and PC wanted PErcy, he's not the long deep threat, but he can get you that 10 to 15 yards in a heart beat.

Control the game, control the clock control the opponent.

 

[ivotuk]

I love what this team does, and they will do it exceptionally well this season thus wearing out our divisional opponents. "We are going to run and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it!"

Tom Cable says we want to exert our will on the opposing team. Well with our "about damn time" offensive line continuity, and our "smash your mouth, hold my dice" running back, we will not only run the ball down your throat, but will also finish out games while your high (or low) powered offense sits helplessly on the sidelines.

 

[Anonymous]

To have the luxury to score at will, then simply waste time on purpose to rest your defense by running easily-stoppable plays sounds countetproductive to me.

As a strategy, you know you can throw it anywhere, so get a lead then run the clock down by running the ball. Use plays that are designed to get 7-8 yards, not simple handoffs up the middle. I'm with Roland on making those running plays more creative. So it loses yards? No problem, just chuck it to one of our uber-talented wide outs that no one will be able to cover.

Piece of cake.

 

[jewhawk]

As it turns out, we ran on both 1st and 2nd downs 31% of the time last season, counting all regular season and playoff games.

Thanks for taking the time to compile those numbers. 31% seems like a ridiculously high number to go run-run on 1st and 2nd downs even if that number is skewed up a bit by the 2nd halves of our blowouts, which seem to be the highest percentages on your list. The problem with such a high run-run frequency on early downs is that strategy sets up a high number of 3rd downs over the course of a drive/game, and even the best offenses aren't going to convert close to 100% of 3rd downs. High-powered offenses are better off calling plays with more potential for long gains on early downs when one failed play (other than turnovers) won't end the drive.

f I had to guess, (and no way am I willing to put in the work to prove/disprove it) I'd say we probably had a higher number of designed runs between the tackles than any team in the NFL aside from San Francisco; and their run blocking is so good, it's almost unfair to even include them in a list, lol.

I'm fine with run-run-pass if we can be more creative with our running. Less "regular" running plays between the tackles. We've got a QB who can, and will, do it all; let's be more creative, not just with stuff like the pitch to Golden who then throws for a TD to Sidney, but that kind of creativity with running plays, too.

This is a good point. Running frequently on early downs would be fine if some of those calls were potentially explosive plays. But the constant 3-yard gain, 4-yard gain, 3rd and short-medium pattern put our offense in too many situations with zero margin for error.

In fact, I would counter that not only is it not as issue, some RRP is absolutely vital for our play action QB. You can't set up play action if you don't run on first and second down some times.

This makes sense in theory, but when RRP is stalling drives at a much higher frequency than more aggressive early down play calling, that's a sign that defenses aren't adjusting to stop the pass. I'm not going to chart out every set of downs from last year, but it was obvious that RRP series failed at a much higher frequency than when we mixed in a pass on 1st or 2nd down. I wrote a post last year at the height of my frustration with RRP, after the Panthers game, that charted each of our six series of downs beginning in FG range from that game. Each of the 3 times we ran on both 1st and 2nd down resulted in a FG attempt. Each of the 3 times we passed at least once on 1st or 2nd down resulted in a 1st down or a TD. I know it's a small sample and just one game, but it felt like too much of the early part of the season followed that trend.

If you score a lot, you put your defense on the field a lot.

I think that has been the problem with teams like the Patriots, The Manning led Colts.. yeah sure they scored a lot, but they gave the opponent plenty of opportunities to score.

We have seen it, how a fresh defense is and how a tired defense is, you put your defense out on the field every 3 or 4 minutes and they will burn up.

Other than halftime and the end of games, teams alternate possessions. If Team A's offense can expect to average more points per drive against Team B's defense than Team B's offense can expect against Team A's defense, then Team A should want to maximize the number of possessions in the game to maximize win probability. The ability to control the clock is great when you're trying to keep the last possession of the 1st half, or trying to maintain a lead late in the game, but as a basic strategy the goal should be to score as much as possible as fast as possible.

The idea of long, extended offensive drives keeping the defense fresh is a myth that has been debunked multiple times. Here is a great article from Football Outsiders examining that myth.

 

[Tical21]

Being able to beat a team by running blasts and dives almost exclusively does more to hurt the morale and soul of that team, and build the morale and swagger of your team, than could be accomplished any other way. We have Marshawn Lynch on our team. Get creative? No thanks. Let us leave cleatmarks across their chests as we march over them. F 'em and feed 'em fishheads.

 

[seahawksTopGear]

Love statistics, but did you just go to the play by play for each game and count? That is an insane amount of work, congrats!

If you have an easier way please let me know. One of the things that frustrated me last season was the number of times we run when we were two and short. I understand that we want to get first downs but It seemed to me to be an automatic call, would like the stats to back that up.

 

[volsunghawk]

Love statistics, but did you just go to the play by play for each game and count? That is an insane amount of work, congrats!

Yeah, that's essentially what I did. I went to the play-by-play logs on PFR, located each Seahawks series, and looked for how we operated each time we had a 1st down. I've got to say that I was pleasantly surprised by how few 3-and-outs I saw, and how few times the run-run combo led to a punt.

I agree with many of the points made by the people discussing this above (which is exactly the kind of discussion I'd hoped this data would spark), and I think there's a lot of room for someone with some free time (maybe even me if I can find some) to really go in depth and see what kinds of success we were having with our run-heavy attack, accounting for game situation.

 

[themunn]

Considering there's 4 possibilities for 1st/2nd down:

Run Run
Run Pass
Pass Run
Pass Pass

You'd expect around a 25% split for each. In actual fact 31% is more reasonable because you don't want to pass/pass 25% of the time, it's aggressive but also dangerous as it allows more opportunities for 0 gain or turnovers, so you'd really prefer to see a smaller split of maybe 15-20% for pass/pass, which leads to an increase in the other three.

Secondly, look at the games we had the highest percentage of run/run in (>40%) - Dallas/Minnesota/NY/Arizona - all 4 were games we had large leads and then just pounded the rock in the 4th quarter. I'd be interested to see the percentage of times we run-run when up by less than a TD/behind

 

[themunn]

Other than halftime and the end of games, teams alternate possessions. If Team A's offense can expect to average more points per drive against Team B's defense than Team B's offense can expect against Team A's defense, then Team A should want to maximize the number of possessions in the game to maximize win probability. The ability to control the clock is great when you're trying to keep the last possession of the 1st half, or trying to maintain a lead late in the game, but as a basic strategy the goal should be to score as much as possible as fast as possible.

The idea of long, extended offensive drives keeping the defense fresh is a myth that has been debunked multiple times. Here is a great article from Football Outsiders examining that myth.

That's missing the whole point though, it's not about keeping your OWN defense fresh, it's about keeping your opposition's defense on the field.
If you can keep your drives averaging 6 minutes and your opponents drives averaging 4 minutes, by the time the 4th quarter rolls around the opposition's defense has been on the field 27 minutes to your defense's 18 minutes.
That has an effect, when it comes to trying to score/protect you want to be going up against a tired defense with a "fresh" defense

That article has two huge fallacies in that it compares plays per drive rather than seconds per play. The patriots can run of 70+ plays in a game and end with a smaller ToP for less time than we can running 35 plays because of our style of play. Seccondly, it's looking at it from the pov that rest time between drives is what is important rather than time elapsed on the field over the entire course of the game.

The biggest positive that comes from running the ball though isn't that the defense gets to rest more or gets tired out by the length of time on the field, it's that for defensive linemen, playing against the run is FAR more tiring than against the pass - against the pass defenders are trying to beat O-Linemen who are holding their ground and trying to stop them - in the run game they're fighting against O-Linemen who are trying to put them flat on their back and that is FAR more exhausting. To do it 10-12 times in a single drive will completely drain them, and if your defense can get an 3 and out in the next drive you get the sort of results we did against Chicago in overtime where you can simply run over them at will

 

[Hawks46]

"That article has two huge fallacies in that it compares plays per drive rather than seconds per play. The patriots can run of 70+ plays in a game and end with a smaller ToP for less time than we can running 35 plays because of our style of play."

That's true, but also not quite in context. If the Pats run 70 plays and are =/- our TOP with 35 plays, the defense will be more tired with the 70 plays. It's only partially about how long you're on the field. If you're using the full play clock, guys can catch a breath, or you can substitute guys in. If you're spamming plays at a team, they have to move more, faster, with less rest, and less subs.

Our offense, with less time between plays, would be evil.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

I always felt the worries about RRP were overblown, the result of frustrated folks resorting to a list of common armchair criticisms that make armchair GM's sound knowledgeable but really have no basis. A couple of things:

* We have Marshawn Lynch. Don't tell me we shouldn't run.

* You don't run on third down. That doesn't leave a lot of other downs to run.

* Neither Lynch's game nor Seattle's run philosophy is based on creativity. It's based on wearing the opponent down. That's what our playcalling and our O-line acquisitions reflect, so it makes sense to run it up the gut.

* We had a young rookie QB to protect. That's another good reason to run.

 

[kearly]

As it turns out, we ran on both 1st and 2nd downs 31% of the time last season, counting all regular season and playoff games.

Thanks for taking the time to compile those numbers. 31% seems like a ridiculously high number to go run-run on 1st and 2nd downs even if that number is skewed up a bit by the 2nd halves of our blowouts, which seem to be the highest percentages on your list. The problem with such a high run-run frequency on early downs is that strategy sets up a high number of 3rd downs over the course of a drive/game, and even the best offenses aren't going to convert close to 100% of 3rd downs. High-powered offenses are better off calling plays with more potential for long gains on early downs when one failed play (other than turnovers) won't end the drive.

This reflects my thinking as well. Good offenses should, in theory, want to face 3rd downs about as often as a pro-poker player would want to face "all-in" situations. That said, Seattle didn't actually see very many 3rd downs last season (which is partially reflected by the stat that Wilson had half as many "3rd and 8+" pass attempts as Andrew Luck). How is that? Wouldn't you expect Wilson to face more 3rd downs than Luck, given Seattle's tendency to play for 3rd and short? By contrast, Luck was airing it out and picking up chunks of yardage through the air.

The reason was, Wilson and Seattle's offense was just that good. Wilson's efficiency numbers were the best in the NFL over his last 13 games. Seattle's offense managed to finish #1 in offense DVOA, proving that it is possible to run the ball more than any other team and still lead the league in offense efficiency.

RRP is perhaps a contributing factor to that. It's often talked about how 3rd and short affords many options, but 2nd and 6 affords a lot of options as well, and allows for a killer play action attack in those situations. Wilson is outstanding at selling play action and has the wide base of skills that makes him even scarier when you can't predict how he'll attack.

I don't think RRP is any kind of golden ticket to offensive success, but I do think if you have elite talent and a dynamic QB, it might be the best way to build an offense. It's consistent, which meant for Seattle we had a consistently awesome offense over the 2nd half of the season. Greg Knapp pretty much did the same thing here with little success, but look at what he was working with. When he had Jeff Garcia, TO, and Hearst, he was a lot more successful. Basically, the system isn't necessarily flawed, it's just more dependent on talent than some other systems might be.

 

[kearly]

Also, worth noting:

Games with most RRP:

Dallas - Win
Jets - Win
Arizona (at Seattle) - Win
Minnesota - Win
Green Bay - Win
San Francisco (at Seattle) - Win
San Francisco - Loss
Carolina - Win
Miami - Loss

Overall: 7-2, with both losses near the bottom of the list.

Point differential: +134 (in nine games!).

Games with least RRP:

Detroit - Loss
Atlanta - Loss
Chicago - Win
New England - Win
Washington - Win
Rams (at Seattle) - Win
Arizona - Loss
Buffalo - Win
Rams - Loss

Overall: 5-4, but it should be noted that nearly all of these games were very close and could have gone either way, with the exception of Buffalo and maybe Washington.

Point differential: +41

-----

Obviously, you'd have more RRP in blowout wins and wins in general, but that being said, you look at the RRP dominant list at the top and you see a host of comfortable wins, whereas the lower list is full of nail biters.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Run, Run, Pass makes me think of the Chuck Knox days. Run left, run right, pass.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I'd love to see a first-half version of this list.