Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Pass/Run Ratio; What Has It Been? Will Marty Help?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Pass/Run Ratio; What Has It Been? Will Marty Help?

    One of the most debated things on Eagles message boards throughout the internet is Andy Reid's run/pass ratio. I have been curious about what it has been since Andy took over in 1999. So I went back and looked at the total plays, running plays and passing plays and want to share the numbers. I also went back to Marty Mornihinweg's days as the San Francisco offensive coordinator (1997-2000) to see what his teams did out there. We'll look at the Eagles from 1999-2005 first...

    1999
    898 Total Plays (474 passing + 424 running)

    53/47 pass/run ratio

    2000
    972 Total Plays (575 passing + 397 running)

    60/40 pass/run ratio

    2001
    934 Total Plays (522 passing + 412 running)

    56/44 run/pass ratio

    2002
    1037 Total Plays (548 passing + 489 running)

    53/47 pass/run ratio

    2003
    902 Total Plays (485 passing +417 running)

    54/46 pass/run ratio

    2004
    923 Total Plays (547 passing + 376 running)

    59/41 pass/run ratio

    2005
    986 Total Plays (621 passing + 365 running)

    63/37 pass/run ratio

    But wait. What about Donovan's running? I took those into account and since we don't know exactly how many were designed runs and how many were scrambles I subtracted all of McNabb's (and every other QBs) rushing attempts as well as the few that Akers had and the one that Landeta had.

    So here are the adjusted breakdowns without any of the QB runs...

    1999
    424 running attempts - 47 McNabb runs - 2 Detmer runs = 375

    474 passing + 375 running = 849 Total Plays

    56/44 pass/run ratio

    2000
    397 running attempts - 86 McNabb runs - 1 Akers run - 1 Detmer run = 309

    575 passing + 309 running = 884 Total Plays

    65/35 pass/run ratio

    2001
    412 running attempts - 82 McNabb runs - 8 Detmer runs = 322

    572 passing + 322 running = 894 Total Plays

    64/36 pass/run ratio

    2002
    489 running attempts - 63 McNabb runs - 1 Akers run - 12 Feeley runs - 2 Detmer runs - 1 Landeta run = 410

    548 passing + 410 running = 958 Total Plays

    57/43 pass/run ratio

    2003
    417 running attempts - 71 McNabb runs = 346

    484 passing + 346 running = 830 Total Plays

    58/42 pass/run ratio

    2004
    376 running attempts - 41 McNabb runs - 3 Blake runs - 10 Detmer runs = 322

    547 passing + 322 running = 869 Total Plays

    63/37 pass/run ratio

    2005
    365 running attempts - 34 McMahon runs - 25 McNabb runs - 1 Detmer run = 305

    620 passing + 305 running = 925 Total Plays

    67/33 pass/run ratio

    A quick re-cap for those of you still awake; the first number is pass %

    1999 - 53/47
    2000 - 60/40
    2001 - 56/44
    2002 - 53/47
    2003 - 54/46
    2004 - 59/41
    2005 - 63/37

    And the numbers after I subtracted QB runs;

    1999 - 56/44
    2000 - 65/35
    2001 - 64/36
    2002 - 57/43
    2003 - 58/42
    2004 - 63/37
    2005 - 67/33

    So it appears that the QB running has accounted for about 4% of the running plays on average. Don't forget that in 2000 the pass numbers were up big time because that is when Duce got hurt and we saw Darnell Autry, Brian Mitchell, Chris Warren and Stanley Pritchett running the ball.

    And when TO arrived in 2004 the pass/run ratio was at its highest since 2000 when McNabb had to throw it a ton. 2005 was bad. Combine the team being behind a lot and combine them attempting to pacify Owens somewhat and you have the biggest differntial in Reid's tenture.

    Andy has said that he wants it in the area of 60/40 and that is generally where its been. It's actually been lower than 60/40 on occasion. So those of you out there who think that Andy will not get back to a better balance after 2005, look at the numbers. But will Marty Mornhinweg help? Let's see...

    Marty was the OC in SF from 1997-2000. In 1998 the 49ers were the first team since the 1941 Bears to be #1 in gross passing yards and gross rushing yards..

    1997 - 432 passing/523 rushing = 45/55 pass/run ratio
    1998 - 556 passing/491 rushing = 53/47 pass/run ratio
    1999 - 560 passing/418 rushing = 57/43 pass/run ratio
    2000 - 583 passing/416 rushing = 58/42 pass/run ratio

    The 1999 and 2000 seasons are when the Niners went downhill. They were 4-12 in 1999 and 6-10 in 2000. They also had Jerry Rice, Terrell Owens, JJ Stokes and Steve Young for most of this time (except when Rice blew his knee out '97).

    Despite having a very potent passing attack the Niners still were committed to the run. So Marty's history says that he will run the ball.

    My overall thoughts are that the Eagles will be in the 55/45 to 60/40 area of the run/pass ratio. That is where most teams are. There are exceptions of course, like the Steelers, but this is a passing league. But the Eagles will run it more this year in my opinion.

  • #2
    A big factor in the number of runs Reid calls is simply how effective the runs are. It seemed like every game last year the first 5 runs would go for about 8 yards. Combine that with the fact that the Eagles were usually down by two scores at the end of the first quarter and what's Reid supposed to do? Keep running Westbrook into the pile and setting up more 3rd and 8's? Getting Hicks and Fraley out of the lineup is going to end up the biggest factor in a better offensive balance. They just couldn't run up the middle at all with those two out there.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by IMK
      A big factor in the number of runs Reid calls is simply how effective the runs are. It seemed like every game last year the first 5 runs would go for about 8 yards. Combine that with the fact that the Eagles were usually down by two scores at the end of the first quarter and what's Reid supposed to do? Keep running Westbrook into the pile and setting up more 3rd and 8's? Getting Hicks and Fraley out of the lineup is going to end up the biggest factor in a better offensive balance. They just couldn't run up the middle at all with those two out there.
      Nice work Phreak. NUmbers by themselves do not tell enough. Like IMK said, the stats are going to be skewed when you play in so many games from behind. Then your season is awash, and the coaches try to see what the backup QB's and future receivers can do.....so they threw alot. Plus, with the only weapon on the offense beinga rookie named Moats, the defenses were placing 8 men in the box. They knew McMahon couldn't beat them. Detmer? LOL

      Jackson and Herremans appear to be the answer. Plus Andrews in his second seaosn on the field and 40 punds light should be a big difference.

      I'm glad to see Marty likes to run. That should balance AR's inability to remember the run plays.
      Pedro

      Comment


      • #4
        First off, thanks for adjusting the totals to take McNabb's scrambles into account. That's been a point of contention for me for a while.

        I think Reid realizes that he needs to get back to at least 60/40 in order to have a healthy offense. If they don't hit that, it indicates that there are problems. Either the defense isn't holding up it's end, and we're forced to play from behind, or there are personnel issues.

        I don't think the defense is going to be an issue this year. They seem to have gotten their defensive line issues squared away, and that was the big problem last year. But, the RB situation could become a problem. Hopefully, they'll get a full season out of Westbrook, and at least one other guy will emerge from the crowd and establish himself as someone we can rely on to make a significant contribution. I was hoping for another three headed monster, but I don't think that's going to happen, because Moats and Perry don't appear to have their $hit together. At least Buck looks good so far.

        Comment


        • #5
          Good post PP. I concur EB that the QB runs skew the numbers significantly and think that 85% - 90% of the QB runs at a minimum are called pass plays. If you put those in as pass plays the stats would lean even more toward pass.
          But I also feel Andy has seen the light somewhat and knows he has to run more. I'm just not sure he has the horses to do it. Of course, Westbrook is ok but the others are a wait and see type thing. As we all know Andy puts his money into OL, DL, and CBs. WRs and RBs not so much.
          Here's to a good run/pass ratio this year!
          Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
          Hope is not a strategy
          RIP

          Comment


          • #6
            Great post PP.

            I think that Andy and the Eagles will run considerable more than last year, that's for sure. Plus, I do think that Donovan will take off a couple of times per game, which will change a bit the way the defenses approach the Eagles.

            I know that the Eagles didn't disclose the extent of Donovan's injury last year, but I am sure that players do talk and have friends in other teams, and I am sure tha the teams last year knew that Donovan wouldn't run. They knew that they could play without fear that he'd take off, and that changes in a way the approach of the game.

            I think that if the Eagles commit to the run, they need to commit to it early and often, however, you need to factor in the type of defense we play. Our defense relies on getting up on the scoring board early, thereby forcing the opposing team to play more passes to catch up, putting the defense in passing situations. If we run for the sake of running and establishing the run, especially if it doesn't yield early results, maybe Reid wants to try and change to what the defense gives him, which might be the pass. In order for him to score early, Reid might be willing to start out firing.

            I think however that where Reid needs to run the ball effectively, is in the second half. Establish a lead, and run run run. Every once in a while, a play action and a deep pass will keep the defense honest, but I would like to see more runs when we got the lead at least, and mix it up sufficiently early enough.
            "You will dress only in attire specially sanctioned by P.E. special services… You are no longer part of the system. You are above the system, over it, beyond it. We're "them." We're "they." We are the Men in Green."

            Comment


            • #7
              "But wait. What about Donovan's running? I took those into account and since we don't know exactly how many were designed runs and how many were scrambles I subtracted all of McNabb's (and every other QBs) rushing attempts as well as the few that Akers had and the one that Landeta had. "

              And as long as you do that to EVERY team that your doing it's a fair analysis -- if you don't it's a worthless exercise.

              Thanks PP, it's a nice break down.

              Comment


              • #8
                Great analysis, Phreak!!! I've been waiting for someone to do that!

                I noticed that the balance toward passing has increased over the past four years (last year, of course, was an abberation in many respects!), which is a disturbing trend because it seems that there are fewer designed running plays for McNabb.

                Thus far in preseason, it seems like they are trying to run the ball more. Let's hope that they are serious about being more balanced and our backs can stay healthy throughout the year!

                Again, nice work!
                "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein." - Joe Theismann



                Comment


                • #9
                  While I would like the Eagles to run more; as long as they prove they can run when they have to I will be happy.
                  Whatcha Gonna Do Brother, When the Eagles run wild on you?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MDFAN
                    And as long as you do that to EVERY team that your doing it's a fair analysis -- if you don't it's a worthless exercise.

                    Thanks PP, it's a nice break down.
                    Exactly. And it really didn't apply too much to the Eagles because McNabb hasn't really run much in the last several years. In his early days he did it out of necessity and because he was still learning to be a QB.

                    Another thing that I found interesting about this was that if you look at the year by year breakdown you can pretty much tell a story with the numbers.

                    In 1999 it was more run because they had Duce coming off of a great season in 1998 (which is why I DID NOT WANT Ricky) and Doug Pederson was the QB early on. And even when McNabb started playing more he either ran it himself because he was inexperienced or they handed off to Duce.

                    In 2000 was when Duce got us all acquainted with the words Lis Franc. They had to throw a ton that year.

                    In 2001 Duce was still not himself yet and they had a rookie in Buck back there - although Buck did have 586 yards. And I still, to this day, say that had he not sprained his ankle in that NFCCG we win. No one will ever convince me otherwise.

                    In 2002 it was pretty balanced. A nice mix.

                    I was a little shocked to not see more of a balance in 2003 at first because that was the famed Three Headed Monster season. But remember the start to that season - they were brutal. They were behind a lot. And it didn't turn around until they started running it more. Took heat off of Donovan. Which is why they BETTER do it again this year.

                    2004 was all TO. That offense was just killing people early on. Pass early and often and then hit the cruise.

                    2005 was a disaster. Not only because they were playing behind and everything like that - but because I firmly believe that Andy was trying to forcefeed the ball to Owens to pacify him. And even Donovan was becoming too reliant on Owens.

                    So here we sit with a fresh slate. What will happen this year?

                    I would guess that we see a 56/44 - 58/42 split.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      "I would guess that we see a 56/44 - 58/42 split. "

                      Is that with or without all runs by non RB's???? LOL!

                      See that's why I say the way to compare is just use the NFL stats, every QB runs, every team runs a couple of end arounds, every team has some busted plays, Mcnabb now a days doesn't run "significantly" more than other teams QB's do---I think he just does it better. At least not enough to skew the results in any major way.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MDFAN
                        "I would guess that we see a 56/44 - 58/42 split. "

                        Is that with or without all runs by non RB's???? LOL!

                        See that's why I say the way to compare is just use the NFL stats, every QB runs, every team runs a couple of end arounds, every team has some busted plays, Mcnabb now a days doesn't run "significantly" more than other teams QB's do---I think he just does it better. At least not enough to skew the results in any major way.
                        That's with his runs figured in there.

                        No doubt numbers can be manipulated. That's why when people would pimp the Falcons #1 rushing attack I would roll me eyes. Mike Vick was the reason those jerks were #1.

                        But I really think that Andy, with Marty constantly reinforcing it, will run it more this year.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by PhillyPhreak54
                          Originally posted by MDFAN
                          "I would guess that we see a 56/44 - 58/42 split. "

                          Is that with or without all runs by non RB's???? LOL!

                          See that's why I say the way to compare is just use the NFL stats, every QB runs, every team runs a couple of end arounds, every team has some busted plays, Mcnabb now a days doesn't run "significantly" more than other teams QB's do---I think he just does it better. At least not enough to skew the results in any major way.
                          That's with his runs figured in there.

                          No doubt numbers can be manipulated. That's why when people would pimp the Falcons #1 rushing attack I would roll me eyes. Mike Vick was the reason those jerks were #1.

                          But I really think that Andy, with Marty constantly reinforcing it, will run it more this year.
                          LOL,, and I agree and I'm looking at may be the same 56/44 or 57/43% as you are. in that range anyhow.

                          Fact is I want #5 to run a few more times and skew those stats.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think (and hope) that Marty has VERY little say in the matter.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X