Can Clinton Carry the Load?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

For the offense to be successful, Portis needs to get the ball 25+ times, and Campbell needs to be around 60% on pass completion. Betts needs to be a 1-2 play breather, and 4th quarter mop up duty from here on out.

I gotta weigh in on this kind of analysis. Not to pick on you, BD, because I see it all the time all over the papers and all over the TV, and something just has to be said.

Saying that "in order to be successful, Portis needs the ball 25+ times a game" is exactly backwards. The proper way to say it is that in order to give Portis the ball 25+ yards per game, he needs to be successful.

It's no secret that our coaches want to run the ball a buttload. But in games when we haven't run much, it's not because the coaches weren't trying. It's because they handed the ball off, the runs got stopped, and we had to punt.

When a RB is ripping off 6 yards on most carries, and sustaining drives, then certainly the RB's carries will get up nice and high, because the team keeps making first downs, and the coach will keep feeding him the ball. But if the run is getting stopped, then we get into passing situations on 3rd down, and the other team gets the ball.

In other words, you can't just say "hand the ball off 30-35 times a game" and we'll be successful. If the run game is going nowhere, you have to try something else.

This is to say that coaching philosophy or playcalling has never been a problem. Execution has been the problem. If the line opens the holes, then feeding Portis 25 carries looks like a genius move. If the line gets stonewalled, then feeding it to him 25 times looks idiotic. Whether it's injuries or whatever, it's on the offensive line. If we want to win, we need them to smash face.

25+ carries are the cart. Don't put them before the hogs.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I gotta weigh in on this kind of analysis. Not to pick on you, BD, because I see it all the time all over the papers and all over the TV, and something just has to be said.

Saying that "in order to be successful, Portis needs the ball 25+ times a game" is exactly backwards. The proper way to say it is that in order to give Portis the ball 25+ yards per game, he needs to be successful.

It's no secret that our coaches want to run the ball a buttload. But in games when we haven't run much, it's not because the coaches weren't trying. It's because they handed the ball off, the runs got stopped, and we had to punt.

When a RB is ripping off 6 yards on most carries, and sustaining drives, then certainly the RB's carries will get up nice and high, because the team keeps making first downs, and the coach will keep feeding him the ball. But if the run is getting stopped, then we get into passing situations on 3rd down, and the other team gets the ball.

In other words, you can't just say "hand the ball off 30-35 times a game" and we'll be successful. If the run game is going nowhere, you have to try something else.

This is to say that coaching philosophy or playcalling has never been a problem. Execution has been the problem. If the line opens the holes, then feeding Portis 25 carries looks like a genius move. If the line gets stonewalled, then feeding it to him 25 times looks idiotic. Whether it's injuries or whatever, it's on the offensive line. If we want to win, we need them to smash face.

25+ carries are the cart. Don't put them before the hogs.

Well, Schneed not to nit pick, but aren't you pointing out the obvious? Yes, we must exectute along the offensive line. That goes without saying. I don't think anyone is saying if Portis get's the ball 25-30 times, we are magically going to be successful or it's some key formula. But rather, him getting the ball that number of times "increases" the probability of Portis doing the type of damage he's capable of.

Truthfully, I don't think one is before the other. They work hand in hand. If the offensive line knows Clinton will get x amount of carries in a game, then I think they respond accordingly. If we can unconditionally commit to a philosphy, we'll probably see better results from both Portis and the offensive line. It's the interchanging of backs, in my opinion, before we get anything going which has been disconcerting, injuries notwithstanding.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Well, Schneed not to nit pick, but aren't you pointing out the obvious? Yes, we must exectute along the offensive line. That goes without saying. I don't think anyone is saying if Portis get's the ball 25-30 times, we are magically going to be successful or it's some key formula. But rather, him getting the ball that number of times "increases" the probability of Portis doing the type of damage he's capable of.

Truthfully, I don't think one is before the other. They work hand in hand. If the offensive line knows Clinton will get x amount of carries in a game, then I think they respond accordingly. If we can unconditionally commit to a philosphy, we'll probably see better results from both Portis and the offensive line. It's the interchanging of backs, in my opinion, before we get anything going which has been disconcerting, injuries notwithstanding.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I don't think it's obvious in the least - I mean ESPN's talking heads say stuff like this all the time.

Committing to the running game doesn't mean it's going to perform well. Execution and the decision to try to execute, are two entirely different things.

You can come up with all the philosophy you want, but in the end, your philosophy needs to be dictated by what your players are capable of doing.

I agree that we need to be running the ball, because it gives us our best chance to win. But I don't agree with blindly handing the ball off without any regard to the success the run game is having - that's how you turn into a predictable offense. The team needs to be capable of both running and throwing the ball. All teams need a plan B, otherwise there's not a lot of adjusting you can do come halftime when you're down by 10 and need to score points.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Well, Schneed not to nit pick, but aren't you pointing out the obvious? Yes, we must exectute along the offensive line. That goes without saying. I don't think anyone is saying if Portis get's the ball 25-30 times, we are magically going to be successful or it's some key formula. But rather, him getting the ball that number of times "increases" the probability of Portis doing the type of damage he's capable of.

Truthfully, I don't think one is before the other. They work hand in hand. If the offensive line knows Clinton will get x amount of carries in a game, then I think they respond accordingly. If we can unconditionally commit to a philosphy, we'll probably see better results from both Portis and the offensive line. It's the interchanging of backs, in my opinion, before we get anything going which has been disconcerting, injuries notwithstanding.

You see, the probability is unaffected by the number of carries.

There's really no specific evidence to confirm (or deny) your theory of Portis' increased effectiveness with increased carries. I can say this: studies have been done on consecutive carries, and have found that in almost all situations, giving consecutive carries to the same back will decrease effectiveness on the second carry.

So I can't really understand what is making you say that running Portis until his legs fall off is our best course of action. That REALLY seems like (but has not yet proven to be) backwards logic. He ran very well this week against a bad defense who did not use their safeties at all around the line until the overtime period. We pushed their nickel defense around all day, and Portis made a bunch of nice plays. The best way to attack the Jets was to keep running him.

Please don't cite this one game example as absolute validation of your theory. Most teams won't be so slow as to make adjustments to the run as the Jets were.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You see, the probability is unaffected by the number of carries.

There's really no specific evidence to confirm (or deny) your theory of Portis' increased effectiveness with increased carries. I can say this: studies have been done on consecutive carries, and have found that in almost all situations, giving consecutive carries to the same back will decrease effectiveness on the second carry.

So I can't really understand what is making you say that running Portis until his legs fall off is our best course of action. That REALLY seems like (but has not yet proven to be) backwards logic. He ran very well this week against a bad defense who did not use their safeties at all around the line until the overtime period. We pushed their nickel defense around all day, and Portis made a bunch of nice plays. The best way to attack the Jets was to keep running him.

Please don't cite this one game example as absolute validation of your theory. Most teams won't be so slow as to make adjustments to the run as the Jets were.

I think you and Schneed make some good points, but it sounds like you guys are not getting where I'm coming from. Or maybe you are, but you just flat out disagree. And both are fine with me.

But my opinion, not argument, is pretty straight forward; I feel that if we can get Portis the ball between 25-30 times a game, we'll see more of the Clinton Portis we've been accustomed to. Period. I can't substantiate that with hard core stats, but I'm willing to bet, he's more productive and so is our win/loss record. I don't see what's so backwards about that.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think you and Schneed make some good points, but it sounds like you guys are not getting where I'm coming from. Or maybe you are, but you just flat out disagree. And both are fine with me.

But my opinion, not argument, is pretty straight forward; I feel that if we can get Portis the ball between 25-30 times a game, we'll see more of the Clinton Portis we've been accustomed to. Period. I can't substantiate that with hard core stats, but I'm willing to bet, he's more productive and so is our win/loss record. I don't see what's so backwards about that.

I'm sort of following your reasoning here, but either:

1) I'm missing a big part of your argument here and unjustly critizing it
or
2) There's a pretty big hole in the argument/opinion/whatever.

Outside of the fact that giving CP 25-30 carries each of the final eight games will likely end his career going foward due to abuse on his body, there is an oppertunity cost to running 30 times a game with a single back.

Against the leagues worst defense, who consistently played with 6 in the box vs. our 3 WR sets and never ever brought up a safety into the box prior to O.T., Portis was able to average over 5 YPC in a game for the first time this season. So because he was consistently picking up big chunks of yards, they kept feeding him. This, of course, is what Schneed was saying.

However, even with the massive success the ground game was having, remember that every down we ran was a down in which we couldn't throw. Even the worst passers average a higher YPA than the best runners. You want to acheive offensive balance, but even when the running game is working, if you can't have a passing game, you end up taking a 1-7 team to O.T.

The fact that we went to O.T. does not tell you to the level that our guys physically dominated that football game, but chewing up all that clock did shorten the game enough for one kick return on the first play of the game to turn total domination into an overtime struggle.

I'm not knocking our gameplan at all, and I can't fault them with going with what was working, but looking ahead, when the oppertunity cost of giving CP 30 carries a game to get on track as opposed to 15 involves:

1) Giving a workload to CP that will most likely end the effective stage of his career and make him injury prone for the rest of it.

2) Take the ball out of Jason Campbell's hands

and

3) Shorten the length of the game allowing a few big plays to decide the course of it (while running 30 times a game)

Then at this point, even if you are right and Portis could be very effective down the stretch with 30 carries a game, I still disagree that it would be a good idea.

I'm all for running as long as it is effective, but the notion that it has to be Portis doing the running, and we have to do it until it works, do or die just seems a bit crazy to me, even if you are correct.

[rk3025]

Who do you want to have the ball ?
The 7th highest rated running back
Or the 25th best quaterback who turns the ball over more than once a game [ more interceptions than touchdowns plus the most fumbles by far]
Sure Byner has taught them how to fumble like he did but not enough to keep them out of the playoffs
Run the ball and hope you get a decent hand off!!!

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm sort of following your reasoning here, but either:

1) I'm missing a big part of your argument here and unjustly critizing it
or
2) There's a pretty big hole in the argument/opinion/whatever.

Outside of the fact that giving CP 25-30 carries each of the final eight games will likely end his career going foward due to abuse on his body, there is an oppertunity cost to running 30 times a game with a single back.

Against the leagues worst defense, who consistently played with 6 in the box vs. our 3 WR sets and never ever brought up a safety into the box prior to O.T., Portis was able to average over 5 YPC in a game for the first time this season. So because he was consistently picking up big chunks of yards, they kept feeding him. This, of course, is what Schneed was saying.

However, even with the massive success the ground game was having, remember that every down we ran was a down in which we couldn't throw. Even the worst passers average a higher YPA than the best runners. You want to acheive offensive balance, but even when the running game is working, if you can't have a passing game, you end up taking a 1-7 team to O.T.

The fact that we went to O.T. does not tell you to the level that our guys physically dominated that football game, but chewing up all that clock did shorten the game enough for one kick return on the first play of the game to turn total domination into an overtime struggle.

I'm not knocking our gameplan at all, and I can't fault them with going with what was working, but looking ahead, when the oppertunity cost of giving CP 30 carries a game to get on track as opposed to 15 involves:

1) Giving a workload to CP that will most likely end the effective stage of his career and make him injury prone for the rest of it.

2) Take the ball out of Jason Campbell's hands

and

3) Shorten the length of the game allowing a few big plays to decide the course of it (while running 30 times a game)

Then at this point, even if you are right and Portis could be very effective down the stretch with 30 carries a game, I still disagree that it would be a good idea.

I'm all for running as long as it is effective, but the notion that it has to be Portis doing the running, and we have to do it until it works, do or die just seems a bit crazy to me, even if you are correct.