[Elvis]

Have you ever done the numbers league wide on what is high and low in terms of percentages of attempts thrown 31 yards or more?

I have. The Rams were always up there in the top third.

That's a simple fact whether or not you like it, or whether or not you somehow (falsely) think that means we're discussing the whole Fisher offense when we discuss that one fact, or whether or not somehow for some reason you think that triggers Fisher Wars etc.

And it was not the same percentage or attempts per game each year or even each qb. So "1.5" doesn't mean anything.

BTW the league as a whole is usually 1.4 or under.

So simple fact. They threw long passes. They completed them at a good rate. That is measured comparatively compared to the league as a whole.

Another simple fact. I did not say what that meant, or what it's value was, or whether it was good or bad. So your obsessive anxiety about acting like somehow this is intolerable and disallowed praise for Fisher is just way misplaced.

If you want to discuss the Fisher offense start a thread. So far all I did was provide real numbers on one specific issue. I didn't mean to set your Ahab off.

I guess you missed my point.

I don't accept your premise about what a long pass is. I don't think many people do.

Like you say, NFL teams throw over 31 yards less than 1.5 times per game. Why would you think people talking about the long passing game were referring to such a small subset of passes?

Basically, when someone says something about long passes and you answer with stats about passes over 31 yards, it's a non sequitur.

You're talking about two different things...

[aeneas1]

It's a fact the Rams throw 31+ at a pretty good clip (about 1.5 times a game).

But it's not a fact they throw long a lot. They don't.

And that's the crux of the disagreement...

last year the top 40 qualifying qbs aired it out 31+ yards 4.2 times per 100 throws, team goff/keenum's rate was 4.7 times per 100 throws... conclusion? the rams threw "deep" a lot, mama mia...

anyway, as was mentioned earlier by someone, pointing at 31+ yard throws is pretty meaningless given the very small percentage, and given we don't know when the throws were made, early in the game on 1st and 2nd downs, or late in the game in desperation mode. one passing stat i wish the guys would tally are throws between 0-5 yards as opposed the 0-10 yard standard given the league average distance to go on 1st through 3rd down was 9.95 yards, 7.96 yards and 7.19 yards, respectively, last season...

[PARAM]

I don't accept your premise about what a long pass is. I don't think many people do.

Like you say, NFL teams throw over 31 yards less than 1.5 times per game. Why would you think people talking about the long passing game were referring to such a small subset of passes?

Basically, when someone says something about long passes and you answer with stats about passes over 31 yards, it's a non sequitur.

You're talking about two different things...

I know there are many websites that provide splits and situational stats. But just looking at the generic NFL.com passing stats, which provide only "completions" broken down on the far right as "20+" and "40+", it's clear that the definition of "deep" or "long" when it comes to passes, varies. Of course those NFL stats aren't "distance ball traveled in the air" but if a ball did carry 31+ yards in the air and was completed, it would show up in that column. In the 40+ column, the high was 17. 13 teams were in double digits, with 2 averaging 1 per game (competed). Is that really "long" passing?

31+ or 40+, from my point of view, despite being a "long" pass, is more the "bomb" variety. You know, the 4th quarter or end of 2nd quarter passes with little time on the clock to get a team into FG range. Or desperation passes for TD's, the kind Rodgers has a knack for executing. I would say "long passes" (defined as passes of the most distance with a reasonable expectation of completing) would fall into the 20-30 yard range. Maybe even 18-30 yards. Hell maybe even 15-30. Everything longer is a bomb and everything shorter beyond 7 or 8 yards is intermediate. But that's just my opinion.

As far as this being a "Fisher" issue, isn't it? Historically, his offenses have stunk when it comes to passing attack. A couple of good years with McNair and one with Kerry Collins. Other than that nada. It's no wonder any suggestion Fisher had a "good" offensive plan (while Rams HC) is met with disdain. Nobody needs a stat website, just the eyeball test.

[/zn/]

I guess you missed my point.

I don't accept your premise about what a long pass is. I don't think many people do..

I know there are many websites that provide splits and situational stats. But just looking at the generic NFL.com passing stats, which provide only "completions" broken down on the far right as "20+" and "40+", it's clear that the definition of "deep" or "long" when it comes to passes, varies. Of course those NFL stats aren't "distance ball traveled in the air" but if a ball did carry 31+ yards in the air and was completed, it would show up in that column. In the 40+ column, the high was 17. 13 teams were in double digits, with 2 averaging 1 per game (competed). Is that really "long" passing?

31+ or 40+, from my point of view, despite being a "long" pass, is more the "bomb" variety. You know, the 4th quarter or end of 2nd quarter passes with little time on the clock to get a team into FG range. Or desperation passes for TD's, the kind Rodgers has a knack for executing. I would say "long passes" (defined as passes of the most distance with a reasonable expectation of completing) would fall into the 20-30 yard range. Maybe even 18-30 yards. Hell maybe even 15-30. Everything longer is a bomb and everything shorter beyond 7 or 8 yards is intermediate. But that's just my opinion.

As far as this being a "Fisher" issue, isn't it? Historically, his offenses have stunk when it comes to passing attack. A couple of good years with McNair and one with Kerry Collins. Other than that nada. It's no wonder any suggestion Fisher had a "good" offensive plan (while Rams HC) is met with disdain. Nobody needs a stat website, just the eyeball test.

Elvis it's complete bs that "most don't accept that." I've done this for years and this is the only time anyone said anything about using the 31+ metric. I;ve had long discussions before about those stats with people whose football knowledge I would take over anybody's. And it didn't happen here until this week, since I used those same stats here before. In fact only 2 people I have seen so far have even made that an issue...the others are arguing they didn't throw them or didn't complete them. Anyway, obviously that metric has value since it defines SI/ESPN splits. Mostly what happened is that it was thought of as a defense of Fisher and it's pretty clear that;s not allowed here (which is why I didn't frame it that way and instead offered it as a simple fact which contributed, for example, to discussions about whether or not TA ever got deep passes thrown his way. Well, he did.) (That's the only explanation I have for the over the top reaction to what is really a simple thing.)

So as I basically said, your issue is with ESPN splits if you don't like that metric. Meanwhile if you don't mind I am just going to keep using it because I have not been shown a good reason not to. Anyway getting a couple of objections here recently (after years of this) that strike me as not being well reasoned is not cause enough to doubt their value. Now unless you're telling me I will always get mod/admin disapproval for doing it, which would be a strange thing but leave me little leeway about where and how I post stats.

PA--no those passes are not just 4th quarter "bombs." Far from it.(The difference between "bombs" and "deep passes" being merely semantic.) All you have to do to see their use in the game is to ask what the effect be if the Rams could not defend against such passes. By reversing it you see more of what purpose those kinds passes serve, particularly when they are tied to play action.

ESPN stats are in fact distance travelled in the air. So are PFF's, though PFF uses a different metric (I always looked at both). I don't use NFL.com stats on this for the very reasons you state. When comparing a team's dedication to medium passing and deep passing, I need ESPN stats. For example when you look at those, you see that Washington's high YPA comes from medium range passing, which btw is an aggressive tactic (to commit to that as much as they do) and I expect to see it with the McVay Rams (the Rams from about 2009 on are far less invested in that kind of pass).

Historically Fisher's offense has stunk when it didn't have a qb and/or didn't have an OL due mostly to massive injuries. But when it did have those things, it wasn't as aggressive as McVay's Washington offense. But that leads me to another, different non-Fisher point (which some will want to drag back into Fisher Wars style confusion and over-emotion and personalizing and hyyperbole). And that's this, and it's regardless of the coach or team. My view of an offense is that several approaches work in the NFL if they have the personnel and execute. So I have nothing against a balanced attack which relies on ball control passing--it too can win if it has (as I said) the personnel and can execute. (See Seattle before last year for example). I regard a preference for aggressive passing and high passing attempts as simply being a matter of personal taste. As it happens, being a very defensive oriented guy, I don't personally have a preference. I know several different offensive approaches can succeed, so I just root for what the team does that works. If McVay can get Goff and the receivers up to par this year and next, I will enjoy a blistering, mid-range, high YPA attack. If suddenly he changes his mind and makes it ball control passing with set-ups for designed play action big plays, I will enjoy that too. I just don't believe one form of offense is "right" and the other "wrong."

...

[R4L]

Whether it fits your narrative or not.

That's you man. Heck take out the 1st 2 games and Case Keenum was an all pro right? My Grampa used to say if you know everything you can't learn anything. You should take that advice.

[RamsFanSince82]

[aeneas1]

That's you man. Heck take out the 1st 2 games and Case Keenum was an all pro right? My Grampa used to say if you know everything you can't learn anything. You should take that advice.

last season team goff/keenum ranked 7th highest in % of passes thrown 10 yards or less in the air among the top 40 qualifying qbs.... for the 2012-2016 stretch, i.e.under fisher, the rams rate for such passes was 10th highest when compared to last year's top 40 qualifying qbs... but we need stats to tell us that, right? also, passes of 10 yards or less account for 70 of 100 passes thrown in the nfl, unlike 31+ yard passes which account for 4 of 100.... if stats were kept for attempts of 5 yards or less in the air, as opposed to 10 yards or less, my guess is the rams qbs would have ranked even higher for the 2012-2016 stretch.

anyway, i really don't care if the rams throw the ball "deep" or not, i just want them to become a team that throws the ball vertically rather than east/west, something that hasn't been a consistent part of their passing game for many, many years.

[PARAM]

anyway, i really don't care if the rams throw the ball "deep" or not, i just want them to become a team that throws the ball vertically rather than east/west, something that hasn't been a consistent part of their passing game for many, many years.

I'm with you (and ZN as far as the wish list is concerned). I don't care how far they throw it as long as they catch it and get yards. In fact, I don't care if they throw a high percentage of short AND east/west passes, as long as the play design allows for YAC. I'd also love it if they had a good intermediate attack passing game. But I think (probably like many Ram fans who've had to watch a boring, ineffective, unsuccessful offensive approach the last 5-9 years) the concern is not HOW they do it but only that they are successful AT DOING IT........and it translates to more checks in the "W" column.

[Vincit Veritas]

F.D. Roosevelt, a coach and front-office guy from the old days, once said in a memorable halftime speech, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Confidence is contagious; the lack of it is infectious.

The Kansas City Chiefs won 12 games and lost 4 in 2016. The team’s fans and the NFL media are brimming with optimism about their prospects this season as well. One of the players they are most excited about is Tyreek Hill, who is being acclaimed as a spectacular offensive weapon. The smallish Hill had fabulous success in 2016 accumulating yards as a receiver, runner, punt returner and kick returner.

The Rams won 4 games and lost 12 in 2016. The team’s fans and the NFL media are riven with doubt about their prospects this season. One of the players they are most down on is Tavon Austin, who is being derided as an overpaid failure and a washout. The smallish Austin, the consensus is, has never had much success accumulating yards as a receiver, runner, and punt returner.

But let’s look at how the failed Tavon Austin did in 2015, compared with how the phenomenal Tyreek Hill did in 2016.

As a receiver and runner, the defective Austin gained 907 yards on offense in 2015. Last year, Hill gained 860 on offense. The weakling Austin scored nine touchdowns on offense in 2015; the incomparable Hill scored nine on offense for the Chiefs in 2016. Austin, despite his insufficiencies, had 11 plays for 20 or more yards in 2015; the powerful Hill had 12 last season. The flimsy Austin had three gains of 40-plus yards; the unstoppable Hill, four. Austin gimped his way to 44 first downs in 2015. In 2016, the stud Hill racked up an amazing 41. The supremely athletic Hill is a nightmarish special-teams weapon as a punt returner, and fumbled only three times in that role in 2016. Austin? Forget it. He can’t hold onto the ball, fumbling twice as a punt returner in 2015 alone.

For me, it’s settled. Austin, as he has shown by his mediocre play on losing teams lacking an effective quarterback, is surely worth next to nothing as an offensive player. Dump him, trade him, just get him out. Hill, according to multiple reports out of the Midwest, is an athletic freak poised for breakout success this season, as the very guy who may carry the Chiefs all the way to the Super Bowl.

There is one other small thing, though. The loser Austin, a flea who is correctly disrespected by fans, the media and at least one former teammate, has quietly gone about his business, drilling on the sidelines this spring, and has said next to nothing publicly. He has created no notable recent controversy. The fantasy-football darling Hill, on the other hand, did achieve distinction not long ago through a felony charge -- domestic abuse by strangulation -- in an attack against his pregnant girlfriend. But that was then; this is now. After all, it’s what you’ve done on the field that counts, isn’t it?

Good luck with your brilliant rising star, Chiefs.

And Damn you, Tavon Austin.

[R4L]

last season team goff/keenum ranked 7th highest in % of passes thrown 10 yards or less in the air among the top 40 qualifying qbs.... for the 2012-2016 stretch, i.e.under fisher, the rams rate for such passes was 10th highest when compared to last year's top 40 qualifying qbs... but we need stats to tell us that, right? also, passes of 10 yards or less account for 70 of 100 passes thrown in the nfl, unlike 31+ yard passes which account for 4 of 100.... if stats were kept for attempts of 5 yards or less in the air, as opposed to 10 yards or less, my guess is the rams qbs would have ranked even higher for the 2012-2016 stretch.

anyway, i really don't care if the rams throw the ball "deep" or not, i just want them to become a team that throws the ball vertically rather than east/west, something that hasn't been a consistent part of their passing game for many, many years.

Thanks for posting the actual stats Aeneas. A breath of fresh air.