Bubble screens and perception vs reality

supytalpeht wrote:

Do people even bother to read articles?

My bad I read it now. First calling the BS a high percentage throw when you have some pretty fast corners out there . Well, let's just say I don't know about high percentage. Second if Ben did in fact throw the ball toward the sideline against the Titans it was a bubble screen and an INT for a TD. I've seen running plays for a loss where I said what the hell was that? It was still a running ply so not choose to not call it a BS for the sake of making the stats look better.

Using the box on top I came up with a 6.18 YPC. Pretty good but how does 2 going back for TD equate? Another thing about these stats. They're averaging out over the course of the year. I don't have enough time on my hands to go back and disect each game to see just how successful it is on a game by game basis. I guess my next question is regardless of the net average does it actually win games for us? You could easily use this arguement with our running game. I don't know what Mendy or Redman averaged exactly. Is it safe to say over 4 YPC?
If so we run on 1rst, 2nd, and 3rd down and we never have to throw the ball and we go undefeated. Make sense?
Hell no it doesn't because we know we play the Rats twice and we ain't running on them.

BGSU A Dub wrote:

I like the screen play, because it works against aggressive defenses (like ours). The thing is, teams aren't sacking Ben because they are aggressive defenses, it's because the O-line gets beat/blown up or a coverage sack (aka "Ben holds onto the ball too long). Another thing I noticed when we ran the screen, it seemed that we weren't blocking (I can remember Heath and Brown missing blocks). Now why on Earth would you throw the ball to arguably your best blocker (Ward)? I have to think it was designed that way for Ward.

Here's a concept: Instead of running the screen with trips to one side or another, why not go 5 wide (2 WRs on one side, 3 on the other) and choose which way you are going to throw the screen at the snap. By having that formation, you are going to have A. less linebackers on the field or B. a linebacker playing 5 to 10 off a guy like Sanders or Brown. You don't need a convoy of blockers for a screen to work; you need one guy to make 1 or 1.5 blocks.

5 wide might if Ben wouldn't wait for ever to choose which side to throw it to. He might end up taking a sack or worse yet giving the opposing D enough time to see it and step in front for an INT.

Wallace108 wrote:

supytalpeht wrote:

There's lot's of good stuff to gnaw on here.

Looking at the numbers below you will see that 45 breaks down to 2.65 a game, a far cry from the 5 or even 10 times a game that fans claim that Arians or Roethlisberger calls it during a game. According to my charting there were 4 games that it wasn't used at all in, so even removing those games from the average it was used 3.46 times a game. 25 times the play produced 4 or more yards and 33 of the 45 times it produced positive yardage. 20 times it produced a first down and the yards per attempt average was a respectable 6.09. There was the 1 interception against the Baltimore Ravens on a nice play by Terrell Suggs and 4 fell incomplete. 1 of the 45 went for a touchdown by Mike Wallace against the Cincinnati Bengals.
When you look at the 2011 bubble screens by target you see that Hines Ward was targeted 11 times for a 4.55 yards per target. How many of these were game planned in to get him some "easy catches" during his march to 1,000 we will never know, but you have to think quite a few were. Those catches accounted for nearly 25% of the balls he caught this past season. Wallace was targeted on 17 of the bubble screens for a very healthy 8.35 yards per attempt. Maybe they didn't throw it to him enough based on those stats. Outside of the 2 incompletions and the interception, Wallace was only held to less than 5 yards on the bubble screen twice and none of the completions went for negative yards.

Stats can be used to prove anything. And sometimes stats don't mean crap. What I want to know is out of the 12 times it produced 0 or negative yardage, how many times was it used on 2nd down and put us in third and long situations? And of the 33 times it resulted in positive yardage, how many of those passes still put us in 3rd and long situations? Just because the screen pass resulted in positive yards doesn't mean it was the right play call at the right time. You can't cherry pick stats, as Steelers Depot did here, to prove a point.

Read the freaking article. They didn't cherry pick shit down, distance, and result is all there. You can't copy and paste from their site, you have to go to edit>view>source. Then sort through all of the html to find a paragraph if you want to post anytnng more than a link. Once you've copied anything here you have to go though taht to remove html tags found within the paragraph that aren't being used.

BGSU A Dub wrote:

Stats don't matter. Wins and losses matter. I don't care if a play is a "high percentage" or "low percentage" play. It's all about execution. Best example: Jerome Bettis on the goal line in Indy. Hand the ball to him 100 times and I bet that he doesn't fumble again.

Again, stats don't mean anything- wins and losses mean everything. Want more proof? Look at what the Packers and Saints are doing this weekend.

Yeah!!!! What he said!!!!

supytalpeht wrote:

Read the freaking article. They didn't cherry pick shit down, distance, and result is all there. You can't copy and paste from their site, you have to go to edit>view>source. Then sort through all of the html to find a paragraph if you want to post anytnng more than a link. Once you've copied anything here you have to go though taht to remove html tags found within the paragraph that aren't being used.

I did read the "freaking" article.

Situations aren't factored into the final analysis. They just looked at the results and concluded that the bubble screen averages "a respectable" 6.09 yards. But if you look at the data, you'll see that 5 of the 45 screens went for yards of 26, 19, 16, 16, and 19. Those five plays were enough to skew the average. If a running back had 5 carries for 100 yards, he averaged 20 yards per carry. But you know he didn't gain 20 yards on each carry. And stats don't explain situations. Did he have any fumbles? Did he stay in bounds instead of running out, thus killing a drive before halftime? Stats don't tell the whole story.

18 of the 45 screens went for 3 yards or less. And what I want to know, which the data don't tell us, is the situation. For instance, was it late in the game and we had a chance to put the game away? It's 2nd and 10 and we ran the screen, gaining 1 yard. Now it's 3rd and 9, followed by an incomplete pass and punt. The other team then got the ball with a chance to win the game.

You can't just look at the results (which are skewed as I pointed out) ... you need to know the game situation when the screen was called in order to get the full picture. For instance, was the play called in a crucial situation and the defense saw it coming? Against Denver, we ran a bubble screen and it was stopped either for no gain or little gain. Sims pointed out the formation and said when Denver's defense sees that, they know it's a screen. The second time they ran it, Sims called it out as they were running it. If HE can see it coming, I'm sure defenses can see it as well. But they still have to stop it. That's where talent takes over. Wallace caught 17 passes for 142 yards. The other receivers combined for 28 passes for 132 yards. Clearly, Wallace's speed makes the play much more effective. So if they were going to run the screen, why not throw it to Wallace more? That's a question you'd have to ask Arians.

Wallace108 wrote:

supytalpeht wrote:

Read the freaking article. They didn't cherry pick shit down, distance, and result is all there. You can't copy and paste from their site, you have to go to edit>view>source. Then sort through all of the html to find a paragraph if you want to post anytnng more than a link. Once you've copied anything here you have to go though taht to remove html tags found within the paragraph that aren't being used.

I did read the "freaking" article.

Situations aren't factored into the final analysis. They just looked at the results and concluded that the bubble screen averages "a respectable" 6.09 yards. But if you look at the data, you'll see that 5 of the 45 screens went for yards of 26, 19, 16, 16, and 19. Those five plays were enough to skew the average. If a running back had 5 carries for 100 yards, he averaged 20 yards per carry. But you know he didn't gain 20 yards on each carry. And stats don't explain situations. Did he have any fumbles? Did he stay in bounds instead of running out, thus killing a drive before halftime? Stats don't tell the whole story.

18 of the 45 screens went for 3 yards or less. And what I want to know, which the data don't tell us, is the situation. For instance, was it late in the game and we had a chance to put the game away? It's 2nd and 10 and we ran the screen, gaining 1 yard. Now it's 3rd and 9, followed by an incomplete pass and punt. The other team then got the ball with a chance to win the game.

You can't just look at the results (which are skewed as I pointed out) ... you need to know the game situation when the screen was called in order to get the full picture. For instance, was the play called in a crucial situation and the defense saw it coming? Against Denver, we ran a bubble screen and it was stopped either for no gain or little gain. Sims pointed out the formation and said when Denver's defense sees that, they know it's a screen. The second time they ran it, Sims called it out as they were running it. If HE can see it coming, I'm sure defenses can see it as well. But they still have to stop it. That's where talent takes over. Wallace caught 17 passes for 142 yards. The other receivers combined for 28 passes for 132 yards. Clearly, Wallace's speed makes the play much more effective. So if they were going to run the screen, why not throw it to Wallace more? That's a question you'd have to ask Arians.

THe time stamps are included, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce when during the game that it was called. In week 12 we ran 4. The 2nd came with 2:08 in either the first quarter or half. It was 2nd down and resulted in a 1st down. THe 4th at worst was run with over 7 minutes to play in the game. It was 2nd down and resulted in a 1st down. If you want to narrow it down even farther check the play by play. If you want to see what happened after a given play that's easy too. It would probably take you all of an hour to find the details on every bubble screen that resulted in 3 yards or less including the results of the next play. No one has ever claimed that stats tell the whole story. But they do show two distinct things, it works more often than not and it's not called 10 times a game like some claim.

supytalpeht wrote:

THe time stamps are included, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce when during the game that it was called.

Hmmmm, care to tell me what quarter in week 2 this screen was called?
2-10-Pitt-33 (13:01) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass short right to 86-H.Ward to PIT 34 for 1 yard

It tells you the time, but it doesn't tell you what quarter.
Were we winning? Losing? What was the situation? But I can tell you it put us in 3rd and long.

supytalpeht wrote:

It would probably take you all of an hour to find the details on every bubble screen that resulted in 3 yards or less including the results of the next play.

I don't think I'll be devoting an hour to chronicling bubble screens anytime soon.

supytalpeht wrote:

No one has ever claimed that stats tell the whole story. But they do show two distinct things, it works more often than not and it's not called 10 times a game like some claim.

The analysis defines "working" by gaining positive yardage. If it's 2nd and 10, and Ben throws a pass that nets 1 yard, it's now 3rd and 9. Yeah, the play got positive yardage, but I'd hardly say that it worked.

I don't know who claimed that we were calling 10 screens per game. I don't believe it was anyone here. But whoever did, I assume they were being sarcastic.

Wallace108 wrote:

I don't know who claimed that we were calling 10 screens per game. I don't believe it was anyone here. But whoever did, I assume they were being sarcastic.

It only feels that way.

Wallace108 wrote:

supytalpeht wrote:

THe time stamps are included, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce when during the game that it was called.

Hmmmm, care to tell me what quarter in week 2 this screen was called?
2-10-Pitt-33 (13:01) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass short right to 86-H.Ward to PIT 34 for 1 yard

It tells you the time, but it doesn't tell you what quarter.
Were we winning? Losing? What was the situation? But I can tell you it put us in 3rd and long.

supytalpeht wrote:

It would probably take you all of an hour to find the details on every bubble screen that resulted in 3 yards or less including the results of the next play.

I don't think I'll be devoting an hour to chronicling bubble screens anytime soon.

supytalpeht wrote:

No one has ever claimed that stats tell the whole story. But they do show two distinct things, it works more often than not and it's not called 10 times a game like some claim.

The analysis defines "working" by gaining positive yardage. If it's 2nd and 10, and Ben throws a pass that nets 1 yard, it's now 3rd and 9. Yeah, the play got positive yardage, but I'd hardly say that it worked.

I don't know who claimed that we were calling 10 screens per game. I don't believe it was anyone here. But whoever did, I assume they were being sarcastic.

You're proving all by yourself the old idiom people that say statistics don't mean anything don't know anything about statistics is true. You're asking questions about a piece on statistics that statistics aren't meant to answer. But, since we beat Seattle 24-0 in week 2, no that one single play never put us in jeopardy of losing the game. That play resulted in a 1st downs almost 50 percent of the time it was called. YOu can't say that about any running play and you sure as hell wouldn't remove it from the playbook if it did. Doing so would be beyond stupid. Statistics are a great tool to use to predict the outcome of a given event. The larger the sample size the more accurate the prediction. Singling out one play and saying see this proves my point is ridiculous.

You can say whatever the hell you want, but the piece of shit play flat out FAILED when it mattered. It resulted in a pick against Baltimore, and if the referees wouldn't have blown the whistles early against the Broncos, it would have been ANOTHER turnover. Not to mention it was a bad whistle, and it should have been a turnover. Stats don't tell the whole story. Your little link didn't provide any insight on when these screen plays we're run, but funny enough the time left on the clock was listed??

What sense does that make?? The guy said "If I missed any, let me know", or something similar to that. If he really went through the games and looked for the plays, why didn't he list the quarter in which it happened? Sure, let's list the time, but not the quarter. It's obvious the guy doesn't want to point out that these retarded plays we're run in the most god-awful situations. If the bubble screen interception against the Ravens wouldn't of happened, we would have been in a better position to win the game. If the referees wouldn't have helped us by blowing the whistle early against the Broncos on the screen, it would have been a pick, and possibly a pick six.

You can run the play all season long and get inflated results based on a few plays that went big, and 30 that went shorter than a run, but it's already evident that the screen play lost the game for us once, and it would've lost it yet again if it wasn't for the refs. The play is shit, and Arians decisions on when to run it is even worse. Fuck the bubble screen, and screw the writer who so conveniently forgot to add insight on when each individual screen was ran.

I don't think we should completely abandon the bubble screen, just use it in smarter ways. Try to disguise it some, throw it to our faster playmakers like Wallace and Brown, and quit going to the well too often with it. Once or twice a game to the right guys keeps the defense at least honest, but 4+ times to guys who are your solid blocking WRs/TEs while asking the speedsters/elusive runners to block for them is not a smart way to attempt to execute it. Ward, Miller, Saunders and Cotchery should more often have been the guys doing the dirty work out front with Wallace, Brown, or Sanders trying to make the YAC play.

A

bayz101 wrote:

You can say whatever the hell you want, but the piece of shit play flat out FAILED when it mattered. It resulted in a pick against Baltimore, and if the referees wouldn't have blown the whistles early against the Broncos, it would have been ANOTHER turnover. Not to mention it was a bad whistle, and it should have been a turnover. Stats don't tell the whole story. Your little link didn't provide any insight on when these screen plays we're run, but funny enough the time left on the clock was listed??

What sense does that make?? The guy said "If I missed any, let me know", or something similar to that. If he really went through the games and looked for the plays, why didn't he list the quarter in which it happened? Sure, let's list the time, but not the quarter. It's obvious the guy doesn't want to point out that these retarded plays we're run in the most god-awful situations. If the bubble screen interception against the Ravens wouldn't of happened, we would have been in a better position to win the game. If the referees wouldn't have helped us by blowing the whistle early against the Broncos on the screen, it would have been a pick, and possibly a pick six.

You can run the play all season long and get inflated results based on a few plays that went big, and 30 that went shorter than a run, but it's already evident that the screen play lost the game for us once, and it would've lost it yet again if it wasn't for the refs. The play is shit, and Arians decisions on when to run it is even worse. Fuck the bubble screen, and screw the writer who so conveniently forgot to add insight on when each individual screen was ran.

The QB throws the ball directly to Suggs and you blame the play? Heath Miller completely whiffs on his block, Ben throws the ball at the wr's feet and you blame the play? if if's and buts were candy and nuts
If Mendy hadn't fumbled in the sb
If Starks hadn't shown up to camp 65lbs overweight
if Colon hadn't torn a tricep
I'm through, enjoy your circle jerk.

supytalpeht wrote:

A

bayz101 wrote:

You can say whatever the hell you want, but the piece of shit play flat out FAILED when it mattered. It resulted in a pick against Baltimore, and if the referees wouldn't have blown the whistles early against the Broncos, it would have been ANOTHER turnover. Not to mention it was a bad whistle, and it should have been a turnover. Stats don't tell the whole story. Your little link didn't provide any insight on when these screen plays we're run, but funny enough the time left on the clock was listed??

What sense does that make?? The guy said "If I missed any, let me know", or something similar to that. If he really went through the games and looked for the plays, why didn't he list the quarter in which it happened? Sure, let's list the time, but not the quarter. It's obvious the guy doesn't want to point out that these retarded plays we're run in the most god-awful situations. If the bubble screen interception against the Ravens wouldn't of happened, we would have been in a better position to win the game. If the referees wouldn't have helped us by blowing the whistle early against the Broncos on the screen, it would have been a pick, and possibly a pick six.

You can run the play all season long and get inflated results based on a few plays that went big, and 30 that went shorter than a run, but it's already evident that the screen play lost the game for us once, and it would've lost it yet again if it wasn't for the refs. The play is shit, and Arians decisions on when to run it is even worse. Fuck the bubble screen, and screw the writer who so conveniently forgot to add insight on when each individual screen was ran.

The QB throws the ball directly to Suggs and you blame the play? Heath Miller completely whiffs on his block, Ben throws the ball at the wr's feet and you blame the play? if if's and buts were candy and nuts
If Mendy hadn't fumbled in the sb
If Starks hadn't shown up to camp 65lbs overweight
if Colon hadn't torn a tricep
I'm through, enjoy your circle jerk.

Ok, i'm done. I'll leave wallace to clean this up.

I'm disappointed that Bruce has an account on here