PDA

View Full Version : Steelers Rushing Rankings per down per play 2004-2007



Mr Smartmonies
06-22-2008, 07:44 PM
Following are the Steelers offense RUSHING rankings per down and in the red area based on PER PLAY. This is another reason why the use of total yardage should not be mentioned when discussing team stats. The rankings are based on the value the Steelers running game received on a play per play average against the other 31 teams.

2007 steelers rushing rankings

1st down #22 (unacceptable)
2nd down #27 (unacceptable)
3rd down #1
Red Zone #26 (unacceptable)

2006

1st down #20 (wasn't much better)
2nd down #26 (wasn't much better)
3rd down #15
Red Zone #25 (wasn't much better)

2005

1st down #14
2nd down #6
3rd down #24
Red Zone #8

2004

1st down #11
2nd down #11
3rd down #2
Red Zone #12

stlrz d
06-22-2008, 07:47 PM
The retirement of Hartings and the continued improvement of Big Ben contribute heavily to this, imo.

Mr Smartmonies
06-22-2008, 08:31 PM
The retirement of Hartings and the continued improvement of Big Ben contribute heavily to this, imo.

I included 2006. Hartings was there.

Not sure how an improved Big Ben could hurt the running game on per play basis.

stlrz d
06-22-2008, 09:01 PM
[quote="stlrz d":2iyb6js1]The retirement of Hartings and the continued improvement of Big Ben contribute heavily to this, imo.

I included 2006. Hartings was there.

Not sure how an improved Big Ben could hurt the running game on per play basis.[/quote:2iyb6js1]

2006 was Hartings' last season...he hung it up for a reason. We also know what type of season Ben had that year too.

The continued improvement of Ben "hurts" the running game because he takes opportunities away from it. And lets not forget that teams still played us to "stop the run and make Ben win", and they saw that he was capable of throwing the ball more and winning. It will be interesting to see how opponents play us this season. If they play us more balanced I believe we will see more balance in the running and passing games.

BURGH86STEEL
06-22-2008, 09:13 PM
[quote="Mr Smartmonies":2mv7n20l][quote="stlrz d":2mv7n20l]The retirement of Hartings and the continued improvement of Big Ben contribute heavily to this, imo.

I included 2006. Hartings was there.

Not sure how an improved Big Ben could hurt the running game on per play basis.[/quote:2mv7n20l]

2006 was Hartings' last season...he hung it up for a reason. We also know what type of season Ben had that year too.

The continued improvement of Ben "hurts" the running game because he takes opportunities away from it. And lets not forget that teams still played us to "stop the run and make Ben win", and they saw that he was capable of throwing the ball more and winning. It will be interesting to see how opponents play us this season. If they play us more balanced I believe we will see more balance in the running and passing games.[/quote:2mv7n20l]

You make good points. There are other factors to consider when evaluating one particular area of the offense or defense when they are in different situations. I guess it is easier to just say it was bad without looking at all the factors that contributed to the situations.

Mr Smartmonies
06-22-2008, 09:32 PM
[quote="Mr Smartmonies":1wfm3hok][quote="stlrz d":1wfm3hok]The retirement of Hartings and the continued improvement of Big Ben contribute heavily to this, imo.

I included 2006. Hartings was there.

Not sure how an improved Big Ben could hurt the running game on per play basis.[/quote:1wfm3hok]

2006 was Hartings' last season...he hung it up for a reason. We also know what type of season Ben had that year too.

The continued improvement of Ben "hurts" the running game because he takes opportunities away from it. And lets not forget that teams still played us to "stop the run and make Ben win", and they saw that he was capable of throwing the ball more and winning. It will be interesting to see how opponents play us this season. If they play us more balanced I believe we will see more balance in the running and passing games.[/quote:1wfm3hok]

ok I will take these one at a time.

1) Steelers were ranked #12 at the center postion in 2006. Ranked #29 at the center postion in 2007. Yet, little difference in the running game in a per play basis.

2) How is Ben taking away opportunities from Parker? Parker was on pace for 400 carries before injury. He had the most carries per game of any Running back in pro football.

3) The Steelers are not being played like the vikings. They are not facing 8 and 9 men in the box to stop parker. It is sad that you actually believe this.

How about Jacksonville last year? I think its fair to say that most defenses gameplanned to stop Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones Drew. Yet the Jags running game was Ranked #7 and #8 on 1st and second down on a per play basis while the steelers were stuck at 22 and 27 respectively.

Flasteel
06-22-2008, 11:34 PM
I'm not surprised by the 2007 numbers (except for maybe the 3rd down ranking), but I wouldn't have expected the '06 or even '05 averages to be that low. Last year we did a real poor job of executing and play-calling in the running game. The line was horrible all the way around but especially up the middle, yet we continually tried to pound Willie between the tackles on first and second down. As a result, we were continually in third and long situations and if it wasn't for Ben's amazing escapability and play-making, this offense would have been among the worst in the league. I think we actually were the number one team in the league in third down conversions until something like week 10, when the pass protection started to become even worse but our running game never helped in setting us up in manageable situations at any point.

It's hard to blame Parker, because he's the kind of back that needs holes opened for him if he's going to run between the tackles and last year there just weren't that many. Why we rarely called his number on the edge is beyond me, but now that we've got a back like Mendenhall and a center who can hold his ground (hopefully), I think we'll be far more effective there and make a concerted effort to let Willie do his thing outside. Forcing teams to defend the entire width of the field is going to put tremendous pressure on opposing linebackers and really open the running game up for us in my opinion. I also think that we're going to be helped in that regard by the continued development of Roethlisberger, Holmes, & Miller as well as the addition of Sweed (& Mendenhall) to our passing game.

I'm pretty excited by the potential both our offense and defense bring heading into the season and if it weren't for the issues with our lines, I would say we had the most talented team in football. I think we'll see enough improvement in the offensive line where those dreadful numbers won't be repeated in 2008.

Shawn
06-23-2008, 01:03 AM
Yeah I'm not sure I buy the took carries away from Parker since we ran the ball...alot. Not to mention a healthy passing game makes it that much easier to run.

stlrz d
06-23-2008, 07:34 AM
Pass attempts per season (Ben only):

2004 - 295
2005 - 268
2006 - 469
2007 - 404

It's not just about taking carries away from Parker, it's about taking carries away from the running game as a whole.

Mr Smartmonies
06-23-2008, 03:40 PM
Pass attempts per season (Ben only):

2004 - 295
2005 - 268
2006 - 469
2007 - 404

It's not just about taking carries away from Parker, it's about taking carries away from the running game as a whole.

I just don't know how to phrase "value per play" any other way to get you to understand. Your either in complete denial or you really just don't understand.

first off, were talking about Willie Parker. He had more carries per game then anyone in pro football. So pleeeeeeeaaaaaassssseeeee stop saying he doesn't get ample opportunity! It's ridiculous! How many more carries does he need? His value per play is just not acceptable.

Flasteel
06-23-2008, 04:26 PM
[quote="stlrz d":3e1hfxxk]Pass attempts per season (Ben only):

2004 - 295
2005 - 268
2006 - 469
2007 - 404

It's not just about taking carries away from Parker, it's about taking carries away from the running game as a whole.

I just don't know how to phrase "value per play" any other way to get you to understand. Your either in complete denial or you really just don't understand.

first off, were talking about Willie Parker. He had more carries per game then anyone in pro football. So pleeeeeeeaaaaaassssseeeee stop saying he doesn't get ample opportunity! It's ridiculous! How many more carries does he need? His value per play is just not acceptable.[/quote:3e1hfxxk]

I see what you're saying and I think the best and most common way to term it would be average yards per carry on those downs. You're absolutely right, any increase in pass attempts isn't going to decrease the effectiveness of his carries, unless of course someone is trying to imply that a decrease in rush attempts doesn't allow a running back to get into a groove...which is clearly not the case with Willie.
I would say however that this is an indictment of our offensive line more than anything else. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Parker is not a chain-mover who can grind out the tough yards between the tackles or in short yardage situations. It's no slam on him, because he's never been that type of back. What is mind-numbing is that Arians kept on trying to make him that guy last year rather than putting him more on the edge. We probably would have been better served mixing in more Dookie or Russell behind that line with their obvious blocking problems (not that Davenport is anything to get excited about or that Russell has proven he can get it done).

I admit to not knowing enough about Mendenhall when we drafted him and didn't think was all that adept in the power running game, but obviously he's got a full tool box. As I said earlier, his addition along with Hartwig and the progress of our passing game promises to improve on those averages.

stlrz d
06-23-2008, 07:38 PM
[quote="stlrz d":27mxhpa0]Pass attempts per season (Ben only):

2004 - 295
2005 - 268
2006 - 469
2007 - 404

It's not just about taking carries away from Parker, it's about taking carries away from the running game as a whole.

I just don't know how to phrase "value per play" any other way to get you to understand. Your either in complete denial or you really just don't understand.

first off, were talking about Willie Parker. He had more carries per game then anyone in pro football. So pleeeeeeeaaaaaassssseeeee stop saying he doesn't get ample opportunity! It's ridiculous! How many more carries does he need? His value per play is just not acceptable.[/quote:27mxhpa0]

I understand completely and I still disagree with you. Defenses played us primarily to stop the run...regardless of who was in the backfield. Even when Ben was throwing all over them they played run first believing that Ben can't beat them through the air. Ben's pass attempts went up meaning fewer opportunities to run. And when we did try to run teams were there to stop it...because they were playing run first.

As long as teams continue to play us run first I believe you will see this trend continue...with the roster as it is now. Back in the days of Bettis' prime it didn't matter...we had an O line that could blow people up and a back that could usually make his own holes.

Once more, in typical MSM fashion you want to blame the O line solely for Ben's sacks yet blame Parker solely for the woes in the running game.

Mr Smartmonies
06-23-2008, 07:52 PM
[quote="Mr Smartmonies":3kt66u07][quote="stlrz d":3kt66u07]Pass attempts per season (Ben only):

2004 - 295
2005 - 268
2006 - 469
2007 - 404

It's not just about taking carries away from Parker, it's about taking carries away from the running game as a whole.

I just don't know how to phrase "value per play" any other way to get you to understand. Your either in complete denial or you really just don't understand.

first off, were talking about Willie Parker. He had more carries per game then anyone in pro football. So pleeeeeeeaaaaaassssseeeee stop saying he doesn't get ample opportunity! It's ridiculous! How many more carries does he need? His value per play is just not acceptable.[/quote:3kt66u07]

I understand completely and I still disagree with you. Defenses played us primarily to stop the run...regardless of who was in the backfield. Even when Ben was throwing all over them they played run first believing that Ben can't beat them through the air. Ben's pass attempts went up meaning fewer opportunities to run. And when we did try to run teams were there to stop it...because they were playing run first.

As long as teams continue to play us run first I believe you will see this trend continue...with the roster as it is now. Back in the days of Bettis' prime it didn't matter...we had an O line that could blow people up and a back that could usually make his own holes.

Once more, in typical MSM fashion you want to blame the O line solely for Ben's sacks yet blame Parker solely for the woes in the running game.[/quote:3kt66u07]

So when Jacksonville rushed 3 and 4 people and dropped everyelse back into coverage in the playoff game, they were still playing run first?

WHERE IN THE HELL DO U GET THIS IDEA THAT TEAMS FEEL BEN CAN'T BEAT THEM? please god stop this NONSENSE ALREADY. THEY DON'T PLAY US LIKE THE VIKINGS. BEN SEES COVER 2 EVERY SINGLE GAME! HE HAD 32 TD PASSES LAST YEAR. PARKER HAD 2. RAY LEWIS SAID "PARKER IS FRAUD." " A FRAUD"

AND WE WERE TIED FOR THIRD MOST CARRIES IN PRO FOOTBALL LAST YEAR! WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. HOW MANY OPPORTUNITIES DO YOU NEED?

http://www.statfox.com/nfl/offstats~sea ... stype~.htm (http://www.statfox.com/nfl/offstats~season~~sortby~ra~stype~.htm)

stlrz d
06-23-2008, 08:54 PM
2006: Ben - 18 TD; FWP - 13 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 31

2007: Ben - 32 TD; FWP - 2 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 34

Mr Smartmonies
06-23-2008, 09:25 PM
2006: Ben - 18 TD; FWP - 13 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 31

2007: Ben - 32 TD; FWP - 2 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 34


Here I got one more for ya.

2006 & 2007

BEN = 50 TD'S

PARKER = 15

stlrz d
06-23-2008, 09:32 PM
[quote="stlrz d":1teem06w]2006: Ben - 18 TD; FWP - 13 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 31

2007: Ben - 32 TD; FWP - 2 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 34


Here I got one more for ya.

2006 & 2007

BEN = 50 TD'S

PARKER = 15[/quote:1teem06w]

The point I was making is the correlation. In 2006 the numbers were more balanced. In 2007 Ben threw more (many more) TDs than he did in 2006. That greatly reduced the number of TD opportunities for ANY of the RBs on the squad.

Mr Smartmonies
06-23-2008, 09:35 PM
[quote="Mr Smartmonies":3k658l08][quote="stlrz d":3k658l08]2006: Ben - 18 TD; FWP - 13 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 31

2007: Ben - 32 TD; FWP - 2 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 34


Here I got one more for ya.

2006 & 2007

BEN = 50 TD'S

PARKER = 15[/quote:3k658l08]

The point I was making is the correlation. In 2006 the numbers were more balanced. In 2007 Ben threw more (many more) TDs than he did in 2006. That greatly reduced the number of TD opportunities for ANY of the RBs on the squad.[/quote:3k658l08]

In 2006 the Steelers had 29.5 rushes a game.

in 2007 the Steelers had 31.5 rushes a game.

And when you scan back to the top of this thread and see the Steelers were ranked 26th for rushing in the Red Zone , that is based on efficiency. Its based on how well they did running the ball inside the redzone per opportunity.That's why I said your missing the point. You are unable to grasp the efficiency angle.

BURGH86STEEL
06-23-2008, 09:59 PM
[quote="stlrz d":2j5v643e][quote="Mr Smartmonies":2j5v643e][quote="stlrz d":2j5v643e]2006: Ben - 18 TD; FWP - 13 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 31

2007: Ben - 32 TD; FWP - 2 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 34


Here I got one more for ya.

2006 & 2007

BEN = 50 TD'S

PARKER = 15[/quote:2j5v643e]

The point I was making is the correlation. In 2006 the numbers were more balanced. In 2007 Ben threw more (many more) TDs than he did in 2006. That greatly reduced the number of TD opportunities for ANY of the RBs on the squad.[/quote:2j5v643e]

In 2006 the Steelers had 29.5 rushes a game.

in 2007 the Steelers had 31.5 rushes a game.

And when you scan back to the top of this thread and see the Steelers were ranked 26th for rushing in the Red Zone , that is based on efficiency. Its based on how well they did running the ball inside the redzone per opportunity.That's why I said your missing the point. You are unable to grasp the efficiency angle.[/quote:2j5v643e]

I am curious but what was the efficiency of the passing game in the red zone? There may be a direct correlation and there are other factors to consider. Like how many times they were in the redzone ect ect. I guess most of the issues go back to the inconsistancies of the Oline.

stlrz d
06-23-2008, 10:04 PM
[quote="stlrz d":3e02otvz][quote="Mr Smartmonies":3e02otvz][quote="stlrz d":3e02otvz]2006: Ben - 18 TD; FWP - 13 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 31

2007: Ben - 32 TD; FWP - 2 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 34


Here I got one more for ya.

2006 & 2007

BEN = 50 TD'S

PARKER = 15[/quote:3e02otvz]

The point I was making is the correlation. In 2006 the numbers were more balanced. In 2007 Ben threw more (many more) TDs than he did in 2006. That greatly reduced the number of TD opportunities for ANY of the RBs on the squad.[/quote:3e02otvz]

In 2006 the Steelers had 29.5 rushes a game.

in 2007 the Steelers had 31.5 rushes a game.

And when you scan back to the top of this thread and see the Steelers were ranked 26th for rushing in the Red Zone , that is based on efficiency. Its based on how well they did running the ball inside the redzone per opportunity.That's why I said your missing the point. You are unable to grasp the efficiency angle.[/quote:3e02otvz]

I understand the efficiency angle and I also think there is more to it than just the numbers...like the situations. The red zone is from the 20 YL in. What was the down and distance for those red zone attempts? What was the offensive formation? What was the defensive formation? Was there an audible? Were there missed assignments? What were the plays called? It goes beyond just the numbers.

birtikidis
06-24-2008, 12:14 AM
MSM quoting Ray Lewis does nothing for your credibility.
he also said he didn't kill anyone.

Shawn
06-24-2008, 12:40 AM
MSM quoting Ray Lewis does nothing for your credibility.
he also said he didn't kill anyone.

:lol:

Mr Smartmonies
06-24-2008, 01:26 AM
MSM quoting Ray Lewis does nothing for your credibility.
he also said he didn't kill anyone.

I will take back the Ray Lewis comment.

BIG FAN
06-24-2008, 01:36 AM
MSM quoting Ray Lewis does nothing for your credibility.
he also said he didn't kill anyone.

I will take back the Ray Lewis comment.

Dutch, you are learning each day. :Clap

Mr Smartmonies
06-24-2008, 02:02 AM
[quote="Mr Smartmonies":2ce8tm49][quote="stlrz d":2ce8tm49][quote="Mr Smartmonies":2ce8tm49][quote="stlrz d":2ce8tm49]2006: Ben - 18 TD; FWP - 13 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 31

2007: Ben - 32 TD; FWP - 2 TD; Total Ben pass and FWP rush TD - 34


Here I got one more for ya.

2006 & 2007

BEN = 50 TD'S

PARKER = 15[/quote:2ce8tm49]

The point I was making is the correlation. In 2006 the numbers were more balanced. In 2007 Ben threw more (many more) TDs than he did in 2006. That greatly reduced the number of TD opportunities for ANY of the RBs on the squad.[/quote:2ce8tm49]

In 2006 the Steelers had 29.5 rushes a game.

in 2007 the Steelers had 31.5 rushes a game.

And when you scan back to the top of this thread and see the Steelers were ranked 26th for rushing in the Red Zone , that is based on efficiency. Its based on how well they did running the ball inside the redzone per opportunity.That's why I said your missing the point. You are unable to grasp the efficiency angle.[/quote:2ce8tm49]

I understand the efficiency angle and I also think there is more to it than just the numbers...like the situations. The red zone is from the 20 YL in. What was the down and distance for those red zone attempts? What was the offensive formation? What was the defensive formation? Was there an audible? Were there missed assignments? What were the plays called? It goes beyond just the numbers.[/quote:2ce8tm49]

It all averages out over a course of a season. I could give you more of these specific stats but your just to stubborn right now to accept them. It would be a waste of my time. I also don't understand why you would need to know the down and distance inside the redzone. Whether their hiking the ball from 19 or 15 I don't see how that would change the way our rushing offense is viewed based on season long averages against their peers.

stlrz d
06-24-2008, 06:35 AM
MSM - I'm not too stubborn...I just happen to know you have an agenda against FWP is all. You're always quoting situational stats to further your points because you say they matter, yet circumstances inside the red zone don't matter?

Mr Smartmonies
06-24-2008, 01:30 PM
MSM - I'm not too stubborn...I just happen to know you have an agenda against FWP is all. You're always quoting situational stats to further your points because you say they matter, yet circumstances inside the red zone don't matter?

Yes, I just woke up one day and decided I hated Willie Parker. :roll:

And I'm waiting for you to tell me about the Red zone stats and why you need to
know the down and distance.

stlrz d
06-24-2008, 06:47 PM
[quote="stlrz d":2s3jxwd7]MSM - I'm not too stubborn...I just happen to know you have an agenda against FWP is all. You're always quoting situational stats to further your points because you say they matter, yet circumstances inside the red zone don't matter?

Yes, I just woke up one day and decided I hated Willie Parker. :roll:

And I'm waiting for you to tell me about the Red zone stats and why you need to
know the down and distance.[/quote:2s3jxwd7]

Because down and distance matters as far as plays called, personnel on the field, formations, etc. How many times did we see penalties in the red zone that backed the Steelers up yet they still attempted to run the ball? I recall seeing that more often than I care to remember'

You're one who always wants to break things down and analyze the numbers yet you stop when you get to numbers that support your POV. So why lump the RZ into just one category instead of breaking it down?

I have no problems admitting that Parker isn't an up-the-middle type back...especially behind this offensive line.

mshifko
06-24-2008, 06:55 PM
mendenhall is going to be a great red zone back for us...his presence alone will lead to more red zone rushing TD's imo...

throw in a legit jump ball receiver like sweed on one side holmes on the other,big tight ends, the best slot red zone WR in hines, and our red zone package should come away with 6 more times than not...

as for our running game as a whole, i'm leaning towards our two RB's making a lot of things happen. willie is a great back and with time, mendenhall will be great as well. our offensive line (particularly center/guards) have to start beating guys at the point of attack for us to see any improvement in the effectiveness of our running game..