Run Pass Breakdown on first and second down

Donate To GopherHole
S

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
22,595
Reaction score
11,835
Points
113
Here are some stats for us to talk about:

Michigan:
First down 58% run 42% pass
Second down 44% run 56% pass

Maryland:
1st down 83% run 17% pass
2nd down 56% run 44% pass

Illinois:
1st down 69% run 31% pass
2nd down 54% run 46% pass

Iowa:
1st down 59% run 41% pass
2nd down 48% run 52% pass

Purdue:
1st down 73% run 27% pass
2nd down 59% run 41% pass



total
1st down 69% run 31% pass
2nd down 52% run 48% pass

in wins
1st down 80% run 20% pass
2nd down 56% run 44% pass

in losses
1st down 60% run 40% pass
2nd down 49% run 51% pass

In games where we score more than 30 points
1st down 74% run 26% pass
2nd down 56% run 44% pass

In games where we score 29 or fewer points
1st down 58% run 42% pass
2nd down 46% run 54% pass
 

What is the effectiveness in our run game in wins vs losses. I’m thinking that may have an effect on how much we run on 1st and 2nd down.
 

Thanks for sharing. I would be curious to see the run/pass split in the first half vs the second half.
 

FullBanana said:
What is the effectiveness in our run game in wins vs losses. I’m thinking that may have an effect on how much we run on 1st and 2nd down.
Click to expand...
I would be curious as well. I didn’t do that when I tallied it up.
 

matt said:
Thanks for sharing. I would be curious to see the run/pass split in the first half vs the second half.
Click to expand...
Without doing counting but just from my memory of compiling it:

We were extremely run heavy in the second half of the Maryland and Illinois games on first down.
 


You also run more when you're in the lead and you're more likely to be in the lead when you score more.
 

Not vs Iowa. We ran the ball anyway, eating up huge clock and then not scoring any points to boot.


If it's a fresh 1st and 10, and you want to be a powerful, running team that goes out and punches people in the mouth ... you're going to run the football on that down.

If it's getting later in the game and it's just not going anywhere, maybe you switch it up.
 

MplsGopher said:
Not vs Iowa. We ran the ball anyway, eating up huge clock and then not scoring any points to boot.


If it's a fresh 1st and 10, and you want to be a powerful, running team that goes out and punches people in the mouth ... you're going to run the football on that down.

If it's getting later in the game and it's just not going anywhere, maybe you switch it up.
Click to expand...
We threw the ball the most as a proportion of 1st and 2nd down snaps against Iowa and Michigan
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
You also run more when you're in the lead and you're more likely to be in the lead when you score more.
Click to expand...
I just think it’s interesting people think we always run on first and second down when we throw the ball about half the time in second down and a third the time on first down.
 



While the run/pass ratios are accurate, you have an insinuation at the end of the post that we run more in wins, and pass more in losses. I'd just like to ensure that you are not trying to correlate the two, at least in terms of full-game statistics. Correlation is not causation.
 

cncmin said:
While the run/pass ratios are accurate, you have an insinuation at the end of the post that we run more in wins, and pass more in losses. I'd just like to ensure that you are not trying to correlate the two, at least in terms of full-game statistics. Correlation is not causation.
Click to expand...
There is no question there is causation. If you think game situation doesn’t impact play calling you’re mad.

I would argue the causation is the other way. Run/pass doesn’t cause wins and losses. Game situation causes run/pass.

when the run game is working, we don’t leave it and it works.
When the run game is not working, the coaching staff has been willing to adjust to a different game plan.

the most lopsided run/pass ratio was Maryland by far (a loss) but the run game was working well...so no need to risk passing on first down (much to the dismay of many on this board)
 

Some guy said:
There is no question there is causation. If you think game situation doesn’t impact play calling you’re mad.

I would argue the causation is the other way. Run/pass doesn’t cause wins and losses. Game situation causes run/pass.

when the run game is working, we don’t leave it and it works.
When the run game is not working, the coaching staff has been willing to adjust to a different game plan.

the most lopsided run/pass ratio was Maryland by far (a loss) but the run game was working well...so no need to risk passing on first down (much to the dismay of many on this board)
Click to expand...
Sounds about correct, but the running game was NOT working against Maryland in the 4th quarter, AND we increased the run/pass ratio in the 4th quarter, which is a big part of the reason we lost. It was also NOT working against Purdue in latter part of the 4th quarter, AND we increased the run/pass ratio at that time, which is a big reason we almost/coulda/shoulda lost.

Run when you can. When you cannot, pass.
 

cncmin said:
Sounds about correct, but the running game was NOT working against Maryland in the 4th quarter, AND we increased the run/pass ratio in the 4th quarter, which is a big part of the reason we lost. It was also NOT working against Purdue in latter part of the 4th quarter, AND we increased the run/pass ratio at that time, which is a big reason we almost/coulda/shoulda lost.
Click to expand...
What you just said is not correct in terms of the numbers but you go ahead and believe whatever you want.

The ratios didn’t significantly shift towards running (one three and out with runs on first and second down doesn’t constitute a shift when there were many possessions with runs on first and second down early in the game)


Also, to get a real breakdown we would have to eliminate all RPOs from the count as the defense dictates the result of the play type. I can’t do that as I don’t know what was called. Really only the coaching staff could do that.



I can’t believe we have reached the point of people arguing the coaching staff was too conservative againstPurdue....a game where we went for it on 4th and short in our own territory with the lead.
We ran the ball and got stuffed.

I would love to have a coach that everything we did always worked. We would win more.
 



Some guy said:
What you just said is not correct in terms of the numbers but you go ahead and believe whatever you want.

The ratios didn’t significantly shift towards running (one three and out with runs on first and second down doesn’t constitute a shift when there were many possessions with runs on first and second down early in the game)


Also, to get a real breakdown we would have to eliminate all RPOs from the count as the defense dictates the result of the play type. I can’t do that as I don’t know what was called. Really only the coaching staff could do that.
Click to expand...
I think what you're getting at is that you think the vast majority of Gopher fans were simply deceived. We did not witness very conservative playcalling at the ends of the Maryland and Purdue games, what we really saw was an open, side to side and downfield passing game that took advantage of the loaded interior defensive boxes. Point taken, you win.
 


No. We went into a shell again late in the purdue game. Go for the win not play to not lose.
 

Some guy said:
We threw the ball the most as a proportion of 1st and 2nd down snaps against Iowa and Michigan
Click to expand...
My Iowa comment in that post was in response to the idea "You also run more when you're in the lead" in the post above.
 

Some guy said:
There is no question there is causation. If you think game situation doesn’t impact play calling you’re mad.

I would argue the causation is the other way. Run/pass doesn’t cause wins and losses. Game situation causes run/pass.

when the run game is working, we don’t leave it and it works.
When the run game is not working, the coaching staff has been willing to adjust to a different game plan.

the most lopsided run/pass ratio was Maryland by far (a loss) but the run game was working well...so no need to risk passing on first down (much to the dismay of many on this board)
Click to expand...
It was working well ... until it didn't work well, and that not working well cost us the game.

That's the problem with looking at statistics in terms of games. Really, the statistics should be in terms of drives. Each drive has its own story and context.
 

Doc1001 said:
No. We went into a shell again late in the purdue game. Go for the win not play to not lose.
Click to expand...
Again, I think the culprit is Sanford is obsessed with trying to get the "perfect" play call on paper for how the defense is aligned pre-snap.

He's calling these runs because they should work very well, given how the defense is lined up. Then they don't work. Because someone screwed up a block, or the defenders recognized the play and reacted very quickly, etc.
 

cncmin said:
I think what you're getting at is that you think the vast majority of Gopher fans were simply deceived. We did not witness very conservative playcalling at the ends of the Maryland and Purdue games, what we really saw was an open, side to side and downfield passing game that took advantage of the loaded interior defensive boxes. Point taken, you win.
Click to expand...
You seem super mature.


I’m saying we saw the same offense in the 4th quarter that we saw in the first, second, and third. I’m saying that a sample size of two plays isn’t enough to me to say “the team changed its strategy drastically


Against Maryland
in the 4th quarter the team ran
2 first down runs
In the 3rd quarter the team ran:
7 first down runs and 1 first down pass

If we threw on one of those two fourth quarter plays would you be saying we drastically changed our strategy to go from 12.5% first down passing to 50%?
 

Doc1001 said:
No. We went into a shell again late in the purdue game. Go for the win not play to not lose.
Click to expand...
For sure. Going for it on your own 35 while leading late in the 4th is playing in a shell and playing not to lose

LOL
 

Some guy said:
For sure. Going for it on your own 35 while leading late in the 4th is playing in a shell and playing not to lose

LOL
Click to expand...

Nah, that was a "Oh crap, running 3 times in a row failed... gotta go for it now and run a 4th time."
 

Some guy said:
You seem super mature.


I’m saying we saw the same offense in the 4th quarter that we saw in the first, second, and third. I’m saying that a sample size of two plays isn’t enough to me to say “the team changed its strategy drastically


Against Maryland
in the 4th quarter the team ran
2 first down runs
In the 3rd quarter the team ran:
7 first down runs and 1 first down pass

If we threw on one of those two fourth quarter plays would you be saying we drastically changed our strategy to go from 12.5% first down passing to 50%?
Click to expand...
Bolded: then the correct observation is that what worked in the first three quarters suddenly stopped working, and they should've changed their strategy.

Seems like a simple observation.
 

MplsGopher said:
Bolded: then the correct observation is that what worked in the first three quarters suddenly stopped working, and they should've changed their strategy.

Seems like a simple observation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but at the same time, I’m not sure two plus constitutes a strategy.

Maybe we should’ve thrown on first down one of those two play.
if we throw an incompletion on one of those two plays instead of running for 7 and 5 yards would people be saying “oh my gosh all of a sudden we air it out half the time on first down”



obviously the team should’ve done something different. It didn’t work. At the end of the day, you’re going to run your offense and what you’re good at...and people are going to criticize with the benefit of hindsight


for some reason I don’t think the coaches are losing sleep over message board posters thinking 4 play Calls were wrong
 

Here are those three drives, from https://gophersports.com/sports/football/stats/2020/maryland/boxscore/15005 (click on play by play and then 4th)

Minnesota at 13:14
1st and 10 at MINN25 MINNESOTA drive start at 13:14.
1st and 10 at MINN25 Ibrahim, M rush for 3 yards to the MINN28 (A. Booker Jr).
2nd and 7 at MINN28 Ibrahim, M rush for 3 yards to the MINN31 (Lawtez Rogers).
3rd and 4 at MINN31 Morgan, Tanner pass complete to Bateman, Rashod for no gain to the MINN31 (C. Campbell).
4th and 4 at MINN31 Stephenson, M punt 36 yards to the UMD33, fair catch by Jeshaun Jones.
Total 3 plays , 6 yards Time of Possession: 2:17

Minnesota at 07:02
1st and 10 at MINN24 MINNESOTA drive start at 07:02.
1st and 10 at MINN24 Ibrahim, M rush for 5 yards to the MINN29 (Ayinde Eley;Nick Cross).
2nd and 5 at MINN29 Ibrahim, M rush for loss of 1 yard to the MINN28 (C. Campbell;Ami Finau).
3rd and 6 at MINN28 Morgan, Tanner sacked for loss of 9 yards to the MINN19 (C. Campbell).
4th and 15 at MINN19 Stephenson, M punt 37 yards to the UMD44, fair catch by Jeshaun Jones.
Total 3 plays , -5 yards Time of Possession: 2:16

Minnesota at 03:38
1st and 10 at MINN25 MINNESOTA drive start at 03:38.
1st and 10 at MINN25 Ibrahim, M rush for 2 yards to the MINN27 (Jordan Mosley).
2nd and 8 at MINN27 Morgan, Tanner pass complete to Bateman, Rashod for 12 yards to the MINN39, 1ST DOWN MINN (Tarheeb Still).
1st and 10 at MINN39 Ibrahim, M rush for 7 yards to the MINN46, out-of-bounds (Fa'Najae Gotay).
2nd and 3 at MINN46 Ibrahim, M rush for 1 yard to the MINN47 (C. Campbell).
3rd and 2 at MINN47 Ibrahim, M rush for no gain to the MINN47 (C. Campbell;Ayinde Eley).
4th and 2 at MINN47 Stephenson, M punt 34 yards to the UMD19, fair catch by Jeshaun Jones.
Total 5 plays , 22 yards Time of Possession: 2:26


The bolded plays killed the drives. Honestly, the third drive is the most upsetting. That was the one where it's like "OK men, we better score on this drive, because Maryland is scoring at will and our defense is broken, it's on us to get this done!" and we had just completed a nice pass.

I can see the run on 2nd and 3. But at that point everyone and their grandma knew it was going to Mo to try to pick up the first. What about a screen? I don't know, that's just coming off like me using hindsight.
 

Seems to be Sanford's calling card this year: "I'll call a handoff to Mo, when it makes the least sense, and it won't work! Watch me!"
 

Yeah. They should’ve passed the ball.
I bet the OC and Fleck would say they should’ve passed the ball in retrospect if speaking honestly too

They didn’t. They ran for 7 on 1st down and then tried to run the big ten’s leading rusher twice for three yards thinking it would work. It didn’t and it was the wrong choice.


It wasn’t because “they went into a shell.” It was because they thought they could just run over the stacked box and they were wrong.
 

Some guy said:
Yeah. They should’ve passed the ball.
I bet the OC and Fleck would say they should’ve passed the ball in retrospect if speaking honestly too

They didn’t. They ran for 7 on 1st down and then tried to run the big ten’s leading rusher twice for three yards thinking it would work. It didn’t and it was the wrong choice.


It wasn’t because “they went into a shell.” It was because they thought they could just run over the stacked box and they were wrong.
Click to expand...
Well like I said, I can even see the 2nd and 3 run (on the 3rd drive). They saw what happens on that play, and there was zero evidence it wouldn't happen exactly like that again. Which it did.

Anyway...
 

Our offense is very, very good. It puts up a lot of points (except against Iowa and perhaps WI) in the first 80% of the game, when the playbook is “open” and defenses have to think and gamble. It also usually controls time of possession well in the early stages of the game—because it uses an open playbook. We confuse defenses. I think what many of us, me included, are inartfully trying to articulate about 4Q play is our impression that the Gophers’ offense—perhaps to minimize the chance of big mistakes, turnovers in our own territory, etc.— becomes very predictable, running a very small set of essentially undisguised plays. This shift to predictability, sometimes extreme predictability, often seems to re-energize a defense that had been confused and in disarray earlier in the game. It gives stamina and hope back to a defense that was dog tired and troubled by self-doubt through the first 3Q. And it voluntarily removes some of our key playmakers from any meaningful role in the offense (other than as decoys) during the final “ball possession” drives. All this in the service of “eating up the clock.” When it works, because we simply overcome the defense with brute force—even if the body count in the box at the snap is against us—it is a thing of football beauty. When it doesn’t work, however, it is extremely frustrating, because if we had simply stuck with an open playbook, as in the first 80% of the game, the “likelihood” is that, as in our earlier drives against the same defense, we would probably get at least a few first downs—which is actually all you need to successfully eat up the clock. This leads folks to ask why, when running predictable plays (“try to stop us”) isn’t working as a closing model, we don’t shift back to an open playbook ... or use some sets or plays not yet used in the game, to confuse the defense. Maybe once you turn the offensive engine off, and let it cool down, it is to psychologically tough to get up and running at full speed again on a few seconds notice. None of this would matter, of course, if our defense could be depended on to shut down our opponents offense in the 4Q. But our 2020 defense can’t, so overall offensive strategy at game’s end does matter in games in which we are nursing a lead.
 
Last edited:

Some guy said:
Yeah, but at the same time, I’m not sure two plus constitutes a strategy.

Maybe we should’ve thrown on first down one of those two play.
if we throw an incompletion on one of those two plays instead of running for 7 and 5 yards would people be saying “oh my gosh all of a sudden we air it out half the time on first down”



obviously the team should’ve done something different. It didn’t work. At the end of the day, you’re going to run your offense and what you’re good at...and people are going to criticize with the benefit of hindsight


for some reason I don’t think the coaches are losing sleep over message board posters thinking 4 play Calls were wrong
Click to expand...
Are you Mike Sanford Jr. or are you one of his relatives?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom