PDA

View Full Version : 2011 passing & running stats by formation thru wk. 5


tony hipchest
10-13-2011, 11:51 PM
this stuff is a bit more advanced than football 101, but very telling, especially if you want to know what opposing coaches are looking at when they develop gameplans against future opponents.

plenty of times i have been left wondering if our offensive staff even charts and examines i.e. basicly self scouts. :noidea: sometimes seems like they dont.

for those who have the time to chart and keep these stats and figures I salute you. :salute:

for those of you who do, and provide the information for research purposes for those of us who dont, i also thank you. :cheers:

out of 317 offensive snaps here are our 3 most frequent formations according to steelersdepot-

http://burgh.us/8q5

61 snaps- 1 rb/ 0 te/ 4 wr (10 personnel)
59 snaps- 1 rb/ 1 te/ 3wr (11 personnel)
40 snaps- 0 rb/ 0 te/ 5 wr (00 personnel)

upon hire, mike tomlin said his offensive philosophy was a smashmouth, power running team. of course things change when you have a revolutionary qb as dynamic as ben.

but this offense is a far cry from the old 22 personnel we used to run with jerome, krieder, tuman, and breuner (with hines ward as an additional blocker/ pass outlet).

ricardisimo
10-14-2011, 01:01 AM
What does the "10 personnel", "11 personnel" refer to?

steve314
10-14-2011, 02:10 AM
What does the "10 personnel", "11 personnel" refer to?

Looks like the first digit is the number of RBs, and the second digit is the number of TEs.

ricardisimo
10-14-2011, 02:50 AM
Not surprisingly, those three formations account for 11 of Ben's 15 sacks. Much more interesting is the yards per pass attempt out of both the 3RB/1TE/1WR set and the 1RB/2TE/2WR. These are their two most productive passing formations, and among their most productive for rushing as well.

You can see why Bruce doesn't want to use them more often. The other team is going to expect us to go the productive route, while at the same time protecting our franchise QB. Not!!! We will so catch them off guard by running riskier, less productive plays. The man is an übergenius, I tell you.

Steel_Bus_24
10-14-2011, 03:07 AM
Not surprisingly, those three formations account for 11 of Ben's 15 sacks. Much more interesting is the yards per pass attempt out of both the 3RB/1TE/1WR set and the 1RB/2TE/2WR. These are their two most productive passing formations, and among their most productive for rushing as well.

You can see why Bruce doesn't want to use them more often. The other team is going to expect us to go the productive route, while at the same time protecting our franchise QB. Not!!! We will so catch them off guard by running riskier, less productive plays. The man is an übergenius, I tell you.

http://ecdn3.hark.com/images/000/002/422/2422/original.jpg

^^Bruce Arians a couple of hours before games, probably sneaks in a session at half time too

DanRooney
10-14-2011, 04:04 AM
The offense we ran with "Jerome, Krieder, Tuman, and Breuner" wasn't good either. Look around the league. Not only are the best offenses pass happy, but the best teams are too. Two of them are undefeated and the Patriots and Saints have only lost to other pass happy teams.

We can't emulate that because our offensive line stinks, our offensive coordinator stinks, and our quarterback doesn't like to dink and dunk. I think opponents just need to respect our running game. We need to make the most of each of our running plays, not necessarily run the ball more. Smashmouth football doesn't work anymore. That's great if you can take a 12 minute drive and score, but if the other team comes back and scores in 2 minutes and keeps doing it, whats the point?

The Texans did their best to emulate 'smashmouth' against us 2 weeks ago, running down our throats but we still could have won that game. Arian Foster didn't beat us. Our ineptitude on offense beat us. We scored 10 points. If Max Starks were playing (or Jonathan Scott wasn't), I'm about 99 percent sure we could have won.

steelfury02
10-14-2011, 08:58 AM
I always go back to the 18-1 Patriots. That season opened up the flood gates for today's NFL offensive formula.

Why spend a lot of money when you can have 1 down field receiver, 3 to 4 speedy little white guys who will take less money and even your 2 tight ends who are technically wide receivers. You only need 2 to 3 seconds to gain 5 to 7 yards so why bother with employing a full back, employing extra blockers, when you just use timing routes.

Same goes for defense. If your offense can hang at least a 30something burger why worry so much when you only have about 1 to 2 other teams that are capable of hanging that much offense

55BaileyFan
10-14-2011, 09:31 AM
Did I hear that the Steelers wasn't good either? Did you even watch football from 2000-2007?

From 200-2005 an aging Jerome Bettis ran for 5199 averaging, 866 yards per season and had 50 touchdowns averaging 8 touchdowns per season *including 2 1000 yard seasons, 2000 + 2001*

From 2004 to 2007, Willie Parker ran for 4198 yards averaging 1049 yards per season and had 19 touchdows averaging 4 per season *didn't start in 2004 by the way; still had 3 1000 yard seasons in his 3 years as a starter*

Duece Staley added another 978 yards and 2 touchdowns in 2004 and 2005.

A lead blocker like Kreider and great tight ends (like Heath) can really make up for a poor offensive line. Those rushing offenses were amazing with a lead blocker and we will never know how good we could be now...because ARIANS AND TOMLIN don't like that bruising lead blockers anymore.

They think that Carey Davis and a poor run blocking David Johnson are better than a Jon Witman, Tim Lester or Dan Kreider.

kirklandrules
10-14-2011, 11:42 AM
If Max Starks were playing (or Jonathan Scott wasn't), I'm about 99 percent sure we could have won.

So Starks is worth 2 scores? Somehow, I don't think one O-lineman was going to make that kind of difference in the Texans game. The Steelers as a whole were looking pretty sorry and the final score was not indicative of the whuppin they received on the field.

Fire Arians
10-14-2011, 11:55 AM
We can't emulate that because our offensive line stinks, our offensive coordinator stinks, and our quarterback doesn't like to dink and dunk. I think opponents just need to respect our running game. We need to make the most of each of our running plays, not necessarily run the ball more. Smashmouth football doesn't work anymore. That's great if you can take a 12 minute drive and score, but if the other team comes back and scores in 2 minutes and keeps doing it, whats the point?

hopefully that changed after this last weekend. the dink and dunk style of passing got him 5 touchdowns, which should change ben's mentality lol

ricardisimo
10-14-2011, 12:51 PM
hopefully that changed after this last weekend. the dink and dunk style of passing got him 5 touchdowns, which should change ben's mentality lol
One would hope.

DanRooney
10-14-2011, 12:57 PM
Did I hear that the Steelers wasn't good either? Did you even watch football from 2000-2007?

From 200-2005 an aging Jerome Bettis ran for 5199 averaging, 866 yards per season and had 50 touchdowns averaging 8 touchdowns per season *including 2 1000 yard seasons, 2000 + 2001*

From 2004 to 2007, Willie Parker ran for 4198 yards averaging 1049 yards per season and had 19 touchdows averaging 4 per season *didn't start in 2004 by the way; still had 3 1000 yard seasons in his 3 years as a starter*

Duece Staley added another 978 yards and 2 touchdowns in 2004 and 2005.

A lead blocker like Kreider and great tight ends (like Heath) can really make up for a poor offensive line. Those rushing offenses were amazing with a lead blocker and we will never know how good we could be now...because ARIANS AND TOMLIN don't like that bruising lead blockers anymore.

They think that Carey Davis and a poor run blocking David Johnson are better than a Jon Witman, Tim Lester or Dan Kreider.

I said our offense has never really good. Did you watch football? Yeah the team could run, as they always have, but the passing game was polar opposite until Ben came to this team. The Steelers offense has never been really good. Average at best. We've always relied on our defense.

In 2007 Willie Parker was terrible despite leading blah blah. He was stuffed at the line more than anyone in the league that year. He was great in 2006, but our quarterback was horrendous coming off of his head trauma. Our team has always been defensive oriented.

DanRooney
10-14-2011, 12:58 PM
So Starks is worth 2 scores? Somehow, I don't think one O-lineman was going to make that kind of difference in the Texans game. The Steelers as a whole were looking pretty sorry and the final score was not indicative of the whuppin they received on the field.

Looks like he's worth about 4 from that Titans game :chuckle:

With all of that ass whopping they pulled on us, we were only down by 1 touchdown. Smashmouth football is obsolete. The Colts/Dolphins MNF game a couple of years back really showed this. The Dolphins had the ball for 45+ minutes yet still lost because Peyton was scoring on them in 2 minute drives. It was nuts.

ricardisimo
10-14-2011, 01:18 PM
Looks like he's worth about 4 from that Titans game :chuckle:

With all of that ass whopping they pulled on us, we were only down by 1 touchdown. Smashmouth football is obsolete. The Colts/Dolphins MNF game a couple of years back really showed this. The Dolphins had the ball for 45+ minutes yet still lost because Peyton was scoring on them in 2 drives. It was nuts.
I'm not sure what to make of this. If you're scoring TDs, then running time off the clock and keeping your defense rested is always a very good thing, no matter what the trends happen to be. If Miami was just marching up and down and then punting or turning the ball over, well... I hope that's not how you define "smashmouth". That's called "Penningtonball".