Herm And The Yards-Per-Play Phenomenon

[FAX]

My crack research team of rocket engineers, nuclear scientists, and painter monkeys ran across an interesting article tonight. Albeit dated, the article raises a point of interest to me considering our offense has recently taken a healthy dose of Hermicide.

Basically, the article cites Elias Sports Bureau statistics in respect to the passing game and two primary factors that dictate wins/losses:

First, the average pass (even counting incompletes) outgains the average run by 50-100%.

Second, the team that scores first wins most NFL games.

Keeping in mind that the article is somewhat dated (August 31, 2005), the statistics they use are pretty compelling in terms of winning percentage by lead in a game (previous five years).

Lead Pct. Games Won
3-0 59%
7-0 71%
10-0 82%
14-0 87%

The premise of the article is that, if you score first, you dramatically increase your odds of winning the game and passing teams (because the average yards per play is greater) have the best chance of scoring first. The following is quoted from the article ...

"Last year, again according to Elias Sports Bureau statistics, the average NFL offense gained 4.1 yards per run and 6.1 yards per pass (even factoring in incompletes) — roughly a 50% advantage for pass plays.

For good passing teams like New England and St. Louis, the average gain was about 7 yards per pass — a 75% advantage over an average running play. For a transcendent passing team, Peyton Manning's Colts, the average gain was 8.5 yards per pass — double the 4.3 yards averaged by Edgerrin James and other Indianapolis runners."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-093...s-football-nfl

Anyway, I googled up one of John Clayton's articles (writing for ESPN in 2005) and his statistics seem to support this theory (at least in part). Basically, his stats show that, in 2004, the Colts averaged 6.7 yards per play followed by the Vikes, Packers, Chiefs, Eagles, Goats, Rams, Eggos, etc. And, 10 of the 13 teams who led the league in YPP made the playoffs.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print...710&type=story

My crack research group loves defense as much as the next homer, and certainly, the best of all worlds is a balanced, high quality performance on both sides of the ball that not only defeats the enemy but shames them into oblivion and sends them home to their mothers. But, one has to admit that there's no substitute for points on the board when you need them and YPP (and by extension) an effective passing offense appears to be a major factor in accomplishing that goal.

I'm interested in the Planet's take on this.

FAX

Disclaimers: Sorry if repost.

[Redrum_69]

Its clear that the statistics are going to be way off balance comparing this years total to last years total if Larry Johnson isnt signed. Brodie Croyle is not going to step in and throw a 4000+ yard season, hes not Manning-esque. If Croyle doesnt step his game up, he'll be pulled as a starter and replaced with Huard, but what if Huard had a freak season last year? I can see Huard stepping in and throwing 4 INTS in a game destroying any credibility he had built from last year. This is where Johnson steps in and carries the team once again. Will Larry work on his blocking skills? Nope..he'll just run more angry. But, without Larry, our hopes will diminish. Bennett cannot carry the team. He just doesnt have the work horse attitude. Wasnt this the same guy who hurt himself in a foot race after practice last year?

With Larry and with the addition to the wide receiver corps we'll have equal stats to last year.

Without Larry....we are screwed

So DAMMIT CARL SIGN LARRY!1

[noa]

Originally Posted by FAX

What the Times article is saying is basically this; the "old school" of establish the run first, wear down the enemy defense, play field position, etc. does not translate into a higher winning percentage compared to teams that strike quickly and establish a lead. Further, he's arguing that teams that pass effectively have a higher YPP and, therefore, are more likely to get a lead. The final piece of the puzzle is that teams who have a lead at any time in any game tend to come out on top when the cheerleaders head for the showers.

With coaches like Bill Belichick and Andy Reid, I think we are seeing a lot of conventional football wisdom consistently being challenged.
It would have been nice to take an unconventional approach at our playoff game in Indy last season. Everyone in the stadium knew we were going to try to wear the Colts down with LJ. I'm not sure that our passing game was strong enough to justify coming out that aggressively with the pass, but it certainly would have kept Indy honest if we had mixed it up more.

Just look at this play-by-play: http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/playby...6011&quarter=0

We led off one drive with a deep pass, and it was our last possession of the game. Other than that, we led off every drive with a run or a short pass that was basically equivalent to a run.