Martz Loses Cool With Media Over Pass to Rush Ratio

[Nick]

Did you ever know someone, who thought they were a genius? MM spends too much time trying to out-think people. He thought... Hmmm - NO has the worst run defense in the NFC (with the exception of the Rams), so I know what I'll do... I set up a game plan based on the pass. Haslett would never expect that. Hmmm - Yes, that's it!!!

And that played right into Haslett's game plan.

Yes, the Saints allowed 170+ yards on the ground the first two weeks. Yes, they were one of the worst ranked rush defenses. But they're also one of the worst ranked pass defenses as well. It's not like Martz ignored the run so that he could pass against a top tier pass defense. The Saints are weak against both. I could see being really upset if Martz avoided the rush because he was more interested in throwing into a top ten pass defense, but the Saints aren't great defending either.

I know it's been stated here before, but since '99, the Rams are 25-21 when Faulk has less than 20 carries. They are 25-1 when he has 20 or more carries. If Faulk isn't capable of that kind of workload, I think Jackson is.

And I think there's a lot more to that stat than just the number of carries a guy gets. People throw these kind of things around all the time. "The Rams are undefeated when Faulk has over 25 carries! Get Faulk the ball you idiot coach!" Well, I think we both know it's not that simplistic. You can't just feed Marshall 20 handoffs in a row and smile at your upcoming victory.

[HUbison]

And I think there's a lot more to that stat than just the number of carries a guy gets. People throw these kind of things around all the time. "The Rams are undefeated when Faulk has over 25 carries! Get Faulk the ball you idiot coach!" Well, I think we both know it's not that simplistic. You can't just feed Marshall 20 handoffs in a row and smile at your upcoming victory.

No more simplistic than throwing the ball 80% of the time and then being dumbfounded when the defense keeps us out of the endzone by assuming we're going to pass, which is exactly what they are doing.

The point of my post is not to simply hand the ball to Faulk 20 times. That would be just as silly as passing 80% of the time. My point is that we put points on the board by balancing the offense. Just think about how much better Bulger will look when teams don't drop all 3 LBs into coverage like NO did. I still can't believe that! Every LB drops back for an entire series and we still didn't run!

If we can't stop anybody on defense, all of this will be moot anyway. However, we will put more points on the board, week in week out, if we balance the offense.

[DaddoRam]

The Giants got Eli Manning in the draft and he hasn't started ONCE! What a waste of a pick, they should just cut him now. A total bust.
We have a very good quarterback, we have the best set of receivers in the game. The ball was moving great Sunday, if we'd lost 28-3 and had 6 3-and-outs I could see the criticism, but this is silly.
But, then, a lot of people (some of whom work for the P-D) search high and low for anything to bash Martz on.

[HUbison]

Guys, I'm not so sure about this running the ball business. I don't think we have the O line to do it. We have speedy WR's, and we are starting to put Bulger in the shotgun of all things just to protect him. The holes haven't been there, and it just seems to ME that Faulk can't run behind this line.

Don't get too hyped up about the YPC stat of the Rams. Remember, Bulger had a 19 yard TD run.

Atlanta, New Orleans, & Arizona combined are allowing 4.4 ypc. Against those three, we averaged 4.7 ypc. Without Bulger's TD run, we still averaged 4.5 ypc.

And as far as the O-line goes...D-lines will be fresh for entire games if we don't attack them. As long as we allow them to pass rush on 80% of our downs, they will not wear down. As teams are showing against us, a D-line is worn down by running at them. If we balanced our offense, the holes would be there as the game went on, but we may never know if we only run the ball 3 times per quarter.

[Nick]

The point of my post is not to simply hand the ball to Faulk 20 times. That would be just as silly as passing 80% of the time. My point is that we put points on the board by balancing the offense. Just think about how much better Bulger will look when teams don't drop all 3 LBs into coverage like NO did. I still can't believe that! Every LB drops back for an entire series and we still didn't run!

While I do agree that we should have started running the seconed their linebackers began dropping back into coverage every snap, there's no guarantee that a more balanced offense would put more points on the board.

And again, I'd like to investigate how many carries Marshall had early on in these 25 wins. It seems to me that when teams take an early lead, they're going to run the ball more often in the second half to control the clock. I really don't think there's a point to that stat unless, in those 25 wins, the team actually had a running game that was distributed over all four quarters and not slanted toward garbage time to keep the opposing offense off the field.

[AvengerRam]

The Giants got Eli Manning in the draft and he hasn't started ONCE! What a waste of a pick, they should just cut him now. A total bust.
We have a very good quarterback, we have the best set of receivers in the game. The ball was moving great Sunday, if we'd lost 28-3 and had 6 3-and-outs I could see the criticism, but this is silly.
But, then, a lot of people (some of whom work for the P-D) search high and low for anything to bash Martz on.

Its a lot easier to play 2 RBs than it is to play 2 QBs.

[HUbison]

there's no guarantee that a more balanced offense would put more points on the board

Let's look at 2003:
In 4 losses, we passed 76% of the time and averaged 17 points per game.
In 12 wins, we passed 56% of the time and averaged 32 points per game.

This year:
In 2 losses, we passed 75% of the time
In 1 win, we passed 53% of the time
This season hasn't shown a difference in points, but it has in the outcome of each game.

Dismiss it if you wish, but I've seen more than enough to at least agree with the theory that a more balanced attack will be more successful than the one-dimensional offense we have now. If nothing else, a more balanced offense keeps our defense off the field.

[Shadesofgrey]

"Its a lot easier to play 2 RBs than it is to play 2 QBs." Not if you are running Single Wing

[Nick]

Dismiss it if you wish

Oh, I will. :tongue:

In the one win this season, we passed 53% of the time. But we scored only 17 points. In our two losses, where we passed 75% of the time, we averaged 21 points per game.

So again, if we're talking about what strategy puts more points on the board, which is what we were talking about whenever I quoted you as saying "My point is that we put points on the board by balancing the offense," it's passing before balance.

Whether or not that wins us games, that wasn't what I was debating. I'm just saying we're more likely to put points on the board through the air.

[thoey]

But Nick, by passing that much, our offense gets off the field quicker. That means more time for our Defense to do their job. And we know how good they have been doing... [sarcasm]

No, I didn't check time of posession. I am sure one of you stat wizards can pull that up.

[HUbison]

But Nick, by passing that much, our offense gets off the field quicker. That means more time for our Defense to do their job. And we know how good they have been doing... [sarcasm]

No, I didn't check time of posession. I am sure one of you stat wizards can pull that up.

Since you asked, in each of our two losses we had the ball about 10 seconds longer than our opponents. In our win, we had the ball 7:40 longer than 'zona.

[HUbison]

Oh, I will. :tongue:

In the one win this season, we passed 53% of the time. But we scored only 17 points. In our two losses, where we passed 75% of the time, we averaged 21 points per game.

So again, if we're talking about what strategy puts more points on the board, which is what we were talking about whenever I quoted you as saying "My point is that we put points on the board by balancing the offense," it's passing before balance.

Whether or not that wins us games, that wasn't what I was debating. I'm just saying we're more likely to put points on the board through the air.

Oh, I figured that would come up. First, I'll take a "W" over more points any day (for example, see 2000 season). Second, we scored as much as we had to. We punted 4 times and 5 times in the past two weeks. In our win, we only punted 3 times. Third, all 3 of those Week 1 turnovers (2 of which were results of passing plays) were in 'zona territory & IIRC in Wilkens range. That very easily could have been a 26-10 game, if not more.

[Nick]

But Nick, by passing that much, our offense gets off the field quicker. That means more time for our Defense to do their job. And we know how good they have been doing... [sarcasm]

No, I didn't check time of posession. I am sure one of you stat wizards can pull that up.

But is time of possession really a weapon for us here? Our defense will probably be poor regardless of how long our offense is on the field. All a long drive is going to do is limit the scoring both teams are able to accomplish. If we spend seven minutes driving down the field and then score a touchdown, that's seven minutes off the clock... but our defense will still suck (unless someone makes a change).

I guess the only time I see a long drive like that being beneficial is towards the end of the game when you're trying to limit how much time your opponent has left on the clock. If there's seven minutes left and we spend six minutes driving down the field before scoring, obviously our opponent has a tougher time being able to score because of the limited time. Otherwise, I'm not sure there's a huge benefit to a long drive if your defense is still going to crumble against the opponent when they're on the field.

Of course, this is all assuming that we'd be able to score on a drive like that. If we spend six minutes driving down the field and can't get into the endzone, where does that leave us?

Since you asked, in each of our two losses we had the ball about 10 seconds longer than our opponents. In our win, we had the ball 7:40 longer than 'zona.

Of course, I'd argue that our defense was actually able to stop Arizona, which resulted in less time of possession for them. The Rams forced the Cardinals to punt eight times. Atlanta and New Orleans combined punted five times, six if you count the punt that was negated by Hargrove. It's easy to win the TOP battle when your defense is actually forcing the opponent to punt the ball.

Oh, I figured that would come up. First, I'll take a "W" over more points any day (for example, see 2000 season). Second, we scored as much as we had to. We punted 4 times and 5 times in the past two weeks. In our win, we only punted 3 times. Third, all 3 of those Week 1 turnovers (2 of which were results of passing plays) were in 'zona territory & IIRC in Wilkens range. That very easily could have been a 26-10 game, if not more.

You're right, I'll take a win over more points as well. But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about a more balanced offense producing more points, and thus far this season, that's not been the case. That's all I was trying to address.

[HUbison]

But is time of possession really a weapon for us here?

Yes.

Our defense will probably be poor regardless of how long our offense is on the field.

All the more reason to take every step possible to keep them off the field.

If we spend seven minutes driving down the field and then score a touchdown, that's seven minutes off the clock... but our defense will still suck (unless someone makes a change).

But it's still 7 less minutes the opposing Offense has to work with.

I guess the only time I see a long drive like that being beneficial is towards the end of the game when you're trying to limit how much time your opponent has left on the clock.

End of the game, middle of the game, beginning of the game...it doesn't matter. With our defense, we should be taking every opportunity to keep the opposing offense off the field. Time is time, and as long as the clock is rolling with our O on the field, good things will happen.

Of course, this is all assuming that we'd be able to score on a drive like that. If we spend six minutes driving down the field and can't get into the endzone, where does that leave us?

Since we've only tried it during the Arizona game, I'd say it leaves us 1-0.

It's easy to win the TOP battle when your defense is actually forcing the opponent to punt the ball.

Nick, you're exactly right. When the defense is playing heads-up ball, the TOP battle is easily winnable (ie. Week 1). But when they're not (ie. Weeks 2 & 3), there should be an even greater impetus to keep the ball in our hands. I know some, and certainly Martz, will disagree, but I think offensive play-calling has to adjust, sometimes, depending on the effectiveness of the defense. When the D is holding up their end, keep them off the field.

You're right, I'll take a win over more points as well. But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about a more balanced offense producing more points, and thus far this season, that's not been the case. That's all I was trying to address.

I believe the evolution of the conversation has led us to wins instead of points, but if the starting spot was points, then I will submit that a balanced offense does not necessarily guarantee more points. Although, in last season, our 5 lowest scores were also 5 of our 6 least balanced offensive displays (Weeks 1, 3, 9, 11, 17).

And, Nick, may I add that I've really enjoyed this discussion so far. For me at least, it has been both educational and entertaining. Thanks.

[Nick]

But it's still 7 less minutes the opposing Offense has to work with.

And it's seven less minutes for our offense to catch up after our defense allows the opposition to score, which decent teams have had no problem doing against our defenders.

When our defense starts shutting down the opposition and we take a decent lead, then let's do it. But if our defense can't stop a blind dog from finding the endzone, why eat clock? Also, if it's a matter of eating clock at the end of the half so we can limit the amount of time an opposing offense has to work with, then okay, that's great. But in the middle of a quarter or something just for the sake of doing it, I'm not seeing it. Especially when our poor ST coverage gives up good field position and the opponent has fewer yards to travel before being in scoring range. I'd be much more inclined to use the gameplan that's best achieving points, and thus far, I think we've seen that the pass has been working.

Nick, you're exactly right. When the defense is playing heads-up ball, the TOP battle is easily winnable (ie. Week 1). But when they're not (ie. Weeks 2 & 3), there should be an even greater impetus to keep the ball in our hands. I know some, and certainly Martz, will disagree, but I think offensive play-calling has to adjust, sometimes, depending on the effectiveness of the defense. When the D is holding up their end, keep them off the field.

I agree. When the defense is holding up and forcing the opposition to punt, we need to chew clock (if we have the lead). But our defense has not shown it can do that. That's why I'm not convinced there's a legit reason to be forming long drives that eat clock at this point.

And, Nick, may I add that I've really enjoyed this discussion so far. For me at least, it has been both educational and entertaining. Thanks.

Agreed!