2020 Offense Outlook

[craig]

21 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

.From shotgun , GB ranked 1st
under center, GB ranked 23rd

11 personnel, GB ranked 6th
12 personnel GB ranked 9 out of 29
21 personnel GB ranked 11th out of 11

Just to review, 12 vs 21 is strictly defined by the listed position of the player, not by where they stand on the field.  Correct?  

So if they run the exact same play, with Tonyan in the backfield, it's "12".  If they repeat EXACTLY the same play with Vitale having the exact same play responsibilities, then it's "21".  

It makes me wonder as to the value of the distinction. With say Deguara, if he's going to primarily hang out in H-back/wingback spots, does it really matter whether we classify him as a FB versus a TE?  Probably not.  But the 12 vs 21 analytics will depend heavily on which title we give him, no?  

The above numbers suggest 21 is rotten for run, but 12 is pretty good.  Even though many of those may have been exactly the same sets and play calls, the only difference being which of Tonyan/Vitale/Jace was standing in? 

Am I right to perhaps deduce that being  worst in 21 is basically an indictment of Vitale in the run game?  It's not an inherently bad set or play call (because it ranks pretty well if you flip out Vitale and replace him with Tonyan); it's just that Vitale was a lousy run blocker, yes?  

I wonder this in part in view of Dillon.  If we conclude from the Vitale season that running from 21 is terrible and is inherently bad strategy, that might prompt the conclusion to NOT consider running from 21 sets with Dillon in the Vitale/Tonyan position.  But if we conclude that running behind Vitale is bad strategy, but running from an equivalent set with Tonyan is fine, we might then consider whether running with Dillon might not also perhaps be fine?  Or hypothetically even better, given that Dillon is faster, perhaps stronger, and perhaps has a lower/better pad level?  Or hypothetically even better because you might perhaps run some 21 sets and give the ball to either back, thus adding deception and defensive confusion as to whom to chase?  

I guess I'm partly reminding myself that I maybe shouldn't conclude, "Hey, stats show that 21 is a terrible personnel group for running".  That stats may actually show no such thing, and only be saying that "Hey, running behind Vitale is terrible."  Correct?  

Other note:  stats show 11th of 11 running from 21.  That only 11 teams in the whole league ran from 21 is interesting in itself, and probably the same size for many of those who did was probably small.  

Edited June 13, 2020 by craig

[Shanedorf]

[AlexGreen#20]

On 6/12/2020 at 4:41 PM, craig said:

Just to review, 12 vs 21 is strictly defined by the listed position of the player, not by where they stand on the field.  Correct?  

So if they run the exact same play, with Tonyan in the backfield, it's "12".  If they repeat EXACTLY the same play with Vitale having the exact same play responsibilities, then it's "21".  

It makes me wonder as to the value of the distinction. With say Deguara, if he's going to primarily hang out in H-back/wingback spots, does it really matter whether we classify him as a FB versus a TE?  Probably not.  But the 12 vs 21 analytics will depend heavily on which title we give him, no?  

The above numbers suggest 21 is rotten for run, but 12 is pretty good.  Even though many of those may have been exactly the same sets and play calls, the only difference being which of Tonyan/Vitale/Jace was standing in? 

Am I right to perhaps deduce that being  worst in 21 is basically an indictment of Vitale in the run game?  It's not an inherently bad set or play call (because it ranks pretty well if you flip out Vitale and replace him with Tonyan); it's just that Vitale was a lousy run blocker, yes?  

I wonder this in part in view of Dillon.  If we conclude from the Vitale season that running from 21 is terrible and is inherently bad strategy, that might prompt the conclusion to NOT consider running from 21 sets with Dillon in the Vitale/Tonyan position.  But if we conclude that running behind Vitale is bad strategy, but running from an equivalent set with Tonyan is fine, we might then consider whether running with Dillon might not also perhaps be fine?  Or hypothetically even better, given that Dillon is faster, perhaps stronger, and perhaps has a lower/better pad level?  Or hypothetically even better because you might perhaps run some 21 sets and give the ball to either back, thus adding deception and defensive confusion as to whom to chase?  

I guess I'm partly reminding myself that I maybe shouldn't conclude, "Hey, stats show that 21 is a terrible personnel group for running".  That stats may actually show no such thing, and only be saying that "Hey, running behind Vitale is terrible."  Correct?  

Other note:  stats show 11th of 11 running from 21.  That only 11 teams in the whole league ran from 21 is interesting in itself, and probably the same size for many of those who did was probably small.  

It's determined by listed position. 

I think the issue is less that Vitale is a bad blocker or player, and more that him being in the game is a strong indicator of run, and also how he was utilized.

If you as a DC see that the personnel grouping is Adams/Lazard/Lewis/Vitale/Jones, that's a pretty decent indicator of a run.

If you as a DC see that the personnel grouping is Adams/Lazard/Lewis/(Graham or Tonyan)/Jones, that's a bit more difficult to discern.

+++

The other big issue is with 2 back sets in general. Lining a player up in the backfield really limits the route tree they can run. It's one thing if you have only one guy dealing with that limitation of having to go laterally first to clear the OL/DL scrum, but if you have two guys doing it, you're limiting the ways that you can attack. 

[craig]

On 6/14/2020 at 7:20 AM, AlexGreen#20 said:

It's determined by listed position. 

I think the issue is less that Vitale is a bad blocker or player, and more that him being in the game is a strong indicator of run, and also how he was utilized.

If you as a DC see that the personnel grouping is Adams/Lazard/Lewis/Vitale/Jones, that's a pretty decent indicator of a run.

If you as a DC see that the personnel grouping is Adams/Lazard/Lewis/(Graham or Tonyan)/Jones, that's a bit more difficult to discern.

+++

The other big issue is with 2 back sets in general. Lining a player up in the backfield really limits the route tree they can run. It's one thing if you have only one guy dealing with that limitation of having to go laterally first to clear the OL/DL scrum, but if you have two guys doing it, you're limiting the ways that you can attack. 

Couple tangent thoughts:

1.  I think Vitale was pretty bad as a blocker, in addition to your other points.

2.  I think the "wingback" formation reduces the clear-the-scrum limitation.  Sometimes if a wingback isn't needed to block a LB or safety, and doesn't need to help double-team an edge, he's got a clear path beyond the line and is only a step or two away.  Normally the wing is really best situated to double-team an edge rusher though; he's not going to help pick up a missed block or a blitz up the middle on a pass play... 

3.  "Pretty decent indicator of run":  Unfortunately that may have tended to be any package with Lewis involved?  Lewis is a well-regarded blocker for good reason.  But it does make it easier on the defense in two ways. First, he is a pretty decent indicator of run.  Second, if you do pass, he's a not-threat.  Even if defense does bite on run and you pass instead, the defense may not be excessively challenged to defend pass effectively.  

4.  If Vitale was viewed as a pretty good indicator of run, I wonder if MLF shouldn't have involved him in more passing calls, including calls in which he was thrown to.  

5.  With MLF's emphasis on run and TE-usage, it's interesting that neither TE drafted is a big blocking type.  I assume that recognizes the value of being more difficult to discern.  

6.  Some posters have been intrigued by the possibility of some sets using BOTH Jones and Dillon in backfield.  I think the discern issue pertains.  Unless they both have and use some effective passing plays from such a set, it's probably not going to be very effective.  

7.  The clear-the-scrum issue is an inherent limit for any 21 sets, which limits passing effectiveness, which in turn also limits run.  Which presumably is why only 11 teams chose to use 21. 

8.  Still, the Packers run efficiency was listed as 11th of the 11 teams who did choose to run from a 21 set.  Not sure why.  I imagine with 49ers, for example, running 21 was NOT that much of an indicator, and even starting behind the scrum Juscyzk still caught 20 passes.  May also be some small-sample-size factor in terms of runs from 21 sets.  Perhaps a guy breaks one tackle and it turns into an 18-yard run, and the Packers might have been 3rd out of 11, beats me.  

[AlexGreen#20]

38 minutes ago, craig said:

Couple tangent thoughts:

1.  I think Vitale was pretty bad as a blocker, in addition to your other points.

2.  I think the "wingback" formation reduces the clear-the-scrum limitation.  Sometimes if a wingback isn't needed to block a LB or safety, and doesn't need to help double-team an edge, he's got a clear path beyond the line and is only a step or two away.  Normally the wing is really best situated to double-team an edge rusher though; he's not going to help pick up a missed block or a blitz up the middle on a pass play... 

3.  "Pretty decent indicator of run":  Unfortunately that may have tended to be any package with Lewis involved?  Lewis is a well-regarded blocker for good reason.  But it does make it easier on the defense in two ways. First, he is a pretty decent indicator of run.  Second, if you do pass, he's a not-threat.  Even if defense does bite on run and you pass instead, the defense may not be excessively challenged to defend pass effectively.  

4.  If Vitale was viewed as a pretty good indicator of run, I wonder if MLF shouldn't have involved him in more passing calls, including calls in which he was thrown to.  

5.  With MLF's emphasis on run and TE-usage, it's interesting that neither TE drafted is a big blocking type.  I assume that recognizes the value of being more difficult to discern.  

6.  Some posters have been intrigued by the possibility of some sets using BOTH Jones and Dillon in backfield.  I think the discern issue pertains.  Unless they both have and use some effective passing plays from such a set, it's probably not going to be very effective.  

7.  The clear-the-scrum issue is an inherent limit for any 21 sets, which limits passing effectiveness, which in turn also limits run.  Which presumably is why only 11 teams chose to use 21. 

8.  Still, the Packers run efficiency was listed as 11th of the 11 teams who did choose to run from a 21 set.  Not sure why.  I imagine with 49ers, for example, running 21 was NOT that much of an indicator, and even starting behind the scrum Juscyzk still caught 20 passes.  May also be some small-sample-size factor in terms of runs from 21 sets.  Perhaps a guy breaks one tackle and it turns into an 18-yard run, and the Packers might have been 3rd out of 11, beats me.  

1. I honestly don't have a strong opinion on this. His role wasn't significant enough for me to chart him out, nor is FB relevant enough around the league for me to really establish a baseline success rate. This is an example where I'm perfectly content to let the overall numbers inform me that I don't want Vitale on the field on offense.

2. The problem is that the wingback doesn't have the same lead blocking options. You can't really ask your wingback to hit the interior linebackers, which is where teams have the most success with the lead blocker. It's not that the Wingback doesn't have a purpose, it's just that formationally they have different purposes.

3. For better or for worse, and I would argue that it was for worse, we passed with Lewis on the field a lot. LaFleur loves his 12 personnel and wasn't stretching to get Tonyan or Sternberger on the field. That ended up with Lewis taking a lot of passing game reps, which as you mentioned, wasn't great.

4. Much like Lewis, Vitale isn't a threat in the pass game. You can try and balance out his ratio, but those pass plays necessarily suffer for him being involved.

5. You really only need 1 TE in this offense that can consistently get the edge. A lot of the TE usage is about lead blocking, it counter leads, or move blocks. An OT masquerading as a TE isn't necessarily a better blocker for those assignments.

6. 2 RB sets can be used effectively for certain packages, but they're inarguably less effective than 11 and even 12 personnel sets. I think there will be a 2 RB package, though I think it will be Jones and Ervin rather than Jones and Dillon.

7. Yep, there's a reason 2 back had been been dying out dead for 30 years.

8. Our 2 RB sets were pretty underwhelming overall, but got better when Ervin got added.

[Joe]

1 hour ago, craig said:

5.  With MLF's emphasis on run and TE-usage, it's interesting that neither TE drafted is a big blocking type.  I assume that recognizes the value of being more difficult to discern.  

Deguara was basically drafted to be an H-back; a blocking type. Sure, he's only 6-2, 240 but that doesn't mean the majority of his snaps will be blocking out of the backfield or 2 TE sets with Lewis on the other side of the formation.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, Joe said:

Deguara was basically drafted to be an H-back; a blocking type. Sure, he's only 6-2, 240 but that doesn't mean the majority of his snaps will be blocking out of the backfield or 2 TE sets with Lewis on the other side of the formation.

Degura's ceiling is Delanie Walker.

The best we can reasonably hope for is Kyle (too drunk to spell his last name) of the 49ers.

Realistically, we probably drafted Spencer Havner. 

[Joe]

3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Degura's ceiling is Delanie Walker.

The best we can reasonably hope for is Kyle (too drunk to spell his last name) of the 49ers.

Realistically, we probably drafted Spencer Havner. 

I hope not...bad enough we reached on him, worse off if he doesn't pan out...

[MrBobGray]

18 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Degura's ceiling is Delanie Walker.

The best we can reasonably hope for is Kyle (too drunk to spell his last name) of the 49ers.

Realistically, we probably drafted Spencer Havner. 

 

[Fl0nkerton]

19 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Realistically, we probably drafted Spencer Havner. 

*Super Bowl Champion Spencer Havner

[deathstar]

Realism and cynicism are not the same..

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, deathstar said:

Realism and cynicism are not the same..

Look up the overall bust rate of 3rd round picks. Look up the bust rate of TEs shorter than 6'3. Look up the bust rate of TEs that run a slower 40 than 4.70.

This pick has bust written on every surface of it.

[MrBobGray]

15 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Look up the overall bust rate of 3rd round picks. Look up the bust rate of TEs shorter than 6'3. Look up the bust rate of TEs that run a slower 40 than 4.70.

This pick has bust written on every surface of it.

He's a full system pick.  That's always a risky thing, because you end up with all of the same potential risk factors for any player (injury, off the field issues, etc.) on top of the fact that the player doesn't really project well to any other position, including other roles in his own position.  Deguara has value as a 3rd round pick pretty much only if he can pull off being a move TE/FB hybrid that can win from the slot.  If that job doesn't pan out, the value is harder to defend, and that's not a role I personally wound have bet a 3rd round pick on. 

That being said, he should bring high end special teams value at least for four years.  Again, that's a bust for a 3rd round pick, but there's a certain floor of value that means you're almost guaranteed to improve your team with this pick - and given the bust rate of 3rd round picks like you said, this probably isn't the worst way to go either.  Hard for me to get upset about and the guy seems like a fantastic locker room guy as well. 

[AlexGreen#20]

48 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

He's a full system pick.  That's always a risky thing, because you end up with all of the same potential risk factors for any player (injury, off the field issues, etc.) on top of the fact that the player doesn't really project well to any other position, including other roles in his own position.  Deguara has value as a 3rd round pick pretty much only if he can pull off being a move TE/FB hybrid that can win from the slot.  If that job doesn't pan out, the value is harder to defend, and that's not a role I personally wound have bet a 3rd round pick on. 

That being said, he should bring high end special teams value at least for four years.  Again, that's a bust for a 3rd round pick, but there's a certain floor of value that means you're almost guaranteed to improve your team with this pick - and given the bust rate of 3rd round picks like you said, this probably isn't the worst way to go either.  Hard for me to get upset about and the guy seems like a fantastic locker room guy as well. 

My issue with that assessment is the idea that somehow the difference between Tonyan and this dude in the H Back role is going to make a difference in our offensive identity. 

The thought of an Adams/Lazard/Sternberger/Deguara/Dillon skill group in 2022 is really really depressing to me. 

[coachbuns]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

My issue with that assessment is the idea that somehow the difference between Tonyan and this dude in the H Back role is going to make a difference in our offensive identity. 

The thought of an Adams/Lazard/Sternberger/Deguara/Dillon skill group in 2022 is really really depressing to me. 

Better off waiting until Sept/Oct to be depressed  ..