Matt LaFleur

[Andrei01]

10 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

Yeah except Marcus is averaging 7.9 YPA (career high) compared to our rushing attack only averaging 3.9 YPC.

I'm aware. It'd be pretty terrible if it were otherwise. What I'm saying is that given the state of his supporting cast, at a higher rate of passing attempts those numbers would likely not be sustained.

[dtait93]

24 minutes ago, Andrei01 said:

I'm aware. It'd be pretty terrible if it were otherwise. What I'm saying is that given the state of his supporting cast, at a higher rate of passing attempts those numbers would likely not be sustained.

It would probably go down yeah, but would that really be worse than what the rushing attack is doing? I’d say no.

[Andrei01]

12 hours ago, dtait93 said:

It would probably go down yeah, but would that really be worse than what the rushing attack is doing? I’d say no.

Well, obviously. If that was the case, we'd have either an all time great running game, or a disastrous passing game. Point is, you can never abandon the running game, and those ~4 YPC are not useless on an offense that pass protects at the worst rate in the league and has only one above average receiving option.

[dtait93]

56 minutes ago, Andrei01 said:

Well, obviously. If that was the case, we'd have either an all time great running game, or a disastrous passing game. Point is, you can never abandon the running game, and those ~4 YPC are not useless on an offense that pass protects at the worst rate in the league and has only one above average receiving option.

My point is not to abandon the running game. It's to lessen the run calls on first down when your QB is averaging a career high in YPA and you have one of the worst rushing attacks in the NFL. There are ways you can delay the pass rush to cloak the pass protection issues that you can turn to for an extra 4-5 plays a game which would give Marcus more time to throw.

[dtait93]

Also Henry is averaging 3.7 ypc and Lewis is averaging 3.3...so more like ~3.5 ypc. I'd be curious to see their average on 1st down.

[KingTitan]

Don't know where to put this. But we are a weird team. 

[TitanSS]

19 hours ago, Andrei01 said:

Yes, according to this, we're tied for 3rd in the league in rushing play percentage.

Well obviously, whole OL play has regressed, but then again, as I said in the post above, if you're really looking to try and understand what it is they're doing and maybe why, a negative run almost always beats a sack, and even a minor 1 or 2 yard gain will always beat an incompletion. After all, we're worst in the league in sacks allowed but only 20th in % of stuffed runs. Maybe that weighs in.

 

So our offense is so bad that instead of trying to gain yards we've just decided to try not to lose yards?

We're tied for 2nd in the NFL for lowest yards per carry. The two teams ahead of us and the one we're tied with in rushing percentage are all top 7 for the best yards per carry, so we know why they run a lot.

So we know we can't run, but continue to accept 1 yard on first down because our offense is playing defensively? Makes sense.

But to the argument that they have adjusted, they haven't. We still are running at a top 3 rate in the NFL.

[Andrei01]

5 hours ago, TitanSS said:

So our offense is so bad that instead of trying to gain yards we've just decided to try not to lose yards?

We're tied for 2nd in the NFL for lowest yards per carry. The two teams ahead of us and the one we're tied with in rushing percentage are all top 7 for the best yards per carry, so we know why they run a lot.

So we know we can't run, but continue to accept 1 yard on first down because our offense is playing defensively? Makes sense.

But to the argument that they have adjusted, they haven't. We still are running at a top 3 rate in the NFL.

Well, at this point, I'm not sure what more is there to add. You can either accept to see some of the nuances and try to understand some of the context that lead to those numbers or get stuck believing that the coaching staff is formed of a bunch of morons that can't evem see what any person with access to internet is able to figure out.

[TitanSS]

52 minutes ago, Andrei01 said:

Well, at this point, I'm not sure what more is there to add. You can either accept to see some of the nuances and try to understand some of the context that lead to those numbers or get stuck believing that the coaching staff is formed of a bunch of morons that can't evem see what any person with access to internet is able to figure out.

Through week 3, I understood the context. It made sense for those numbers to describe our team. And then in week 4 we came out passing and looked good and we all thought that conservative BS would be behind us. That's explained through the context.

What about the context last week being down big in the second half of a game and running it on the opening first down 4 consecutive drives in a row, which had not been working all game?

Sometimes statistics dont match the eye test. Sometimes they do. I didn't look at numbers and then come up with the conclusion "Hey, we run too much even though it doesn't work". I felt like we were running it far too often for a team that is failing miserably at it, and the statistics support it.

My opinion with what I have seen is backed up with data. There are no nuances and there is nothing else to add. That's the bottom line.

Could the fact that we can't protect the QB play into it? Sure, but that's the conservative mindset that not only do we all hate, but very seldomly wins games. The games we've won since week 3, we've came out passing. We're not gonna put up 30 if we're calling plays to not lose yards instead of to gain yards

[Andrei01]

10 hours ago, TitanSS said:

Through week 3, I understood the context. It made sense for those numbers to describe our team. And then in week 4 we came out passing and looked good and we all thought that conservative BS would be behind us. That's explained through the context.

What about the context last week being down big in the second half of a game and running it on the opening first down 4 consecutive drives in a row, which had not been working all game?

Sometimes statistics dont match the eye test. Sometimes they do. I didn't look at numbers and then come up with the conclusion "Hey, we run too much even though it doesn't work". I felt like we were running it far too often for a team that is failing miserably at it, and the statistics support it.

My opinion with what I have seen is backed up with data. There are no nuances and there is nothing else to add. That's the bottom line.

Could the fact that we can't protect the QB play into it? Sure, but that's the conservative mindset that not only do we all hate, but very seldomly wins games. The games we've won since week 3, we've came out passing. We're not gonna put up 30 if we're calling plays to not lose yards instead of to gain yards

Well, we were also sacked 4 times in the second half of last game. Twice on the opening drive, on back to back plays that took us from Houston's 49 and put us in 3rd & 20. Had we ran the ball into a wall in that situation, we'd still be better off overall in having a chance to convert and ultimately score.

I get wanting to be aggressive, but if you were looking to cut them some slack for the lack of it in week 3, I don't see what has changed other than Marcus being healthy (when he's not hurt again). Even with both our starting tackles back we can't protect and we have very, very little besides Davis to throw the ball to.

[dtait93]

23 hours ago, dtait93 said:

Also Henry is averaging 3.7 ypc and Lewis is averaging 3.3...so more like ~3.5 ypc. I'd be curious to see their average on 1st down.

3.3 ypc on first down.

 

[TitanSS]

5 hours ago, Andrei01 said:

Well, we were also sacked 4 times in the second half of last game. Twice on the opening drive, on back to back plays that took us from Houston's 49 and put us in 3rd & 20. Had we ran the ball into a wall in that situation, we'd still be better off overall in having a chance to convert and ultimately score.

I get wanting to be aggressive, but if you were looking to cut them some slack for the lack of it in week 3, I don't see what has changed other than Marcus being healthy (when he's not hurt again). Even with both our starting tackles back we can't protect and we have very, very little besides Davis to throw the ball to.

So with every playcall we're looking to get the best worst case scenario? If you're already losing by 17 you can't play defensively or you won't score points. So whether it's a 6 yard sack or a 0 yard run, we still lose the game. You can't call plays with a negative mindset in those situations because the negative outcomes of both have the same result, losing the game, but the positive outcomes of throwing it can potentially change that.

If we were up by 17, then you call plays with negative outcomes in mind.

Mariota being healthy is a huge change when considering run percentage. If your QB can't throw you're probably going to run more often. Also, in week 3, we allowed 6 points. Our offense could play defensively and still get the W. That's context. In week 12 we couldn't. We were already down. You have to be able to adjust to those situations and he's not.

[dtait93]

We’re taking the ball out of this mans hands when we’re down 17 when he’s also averaging a career high YPA? Dumb assery.

[titanrick]

This always becomes a circular argument but it's worth mentioning that if you abandon the run entirely, the DLine tees off against the pass, LBs don't respect the run and then it becomes MUCH harder to pass when you have one respectable WR.  So keeping the threat of a run (even if it's gains of 1, 2 yards) can play a role in the success of the passing game.

[deeluxx3]

2 hours ago, dtait93 said:

We’re taking the ball out of this mans hands when we’re down 17 when he’s also averaging a career high YPA? Dumb assery.

We're dead last in the league in passing attempts per game. That's appalling.

 

We just won't transition to the 21st century.