Big plays and the 2014 Rams

[Merlin]

So to start with I decided to look up big plays with the belief that it would accurately reflect the Rams' offensive woes last season, but as I perused the list (10+ yards run plays, 25+ yards passing plays) there were some surprises...

First off, the Rams were much higher than I would have expected in Big Play % at 10 overall, in the face of a season spent without their starting QB and two very pedestrian signal callers running the offense. Oh and of course the #1 team shocked me as well... How could that be?

Taking a deeper look shows the running game has much to do with it. Rams had a very pedestrian running game in terms of avg per rush, however they were tied for 6th in the league overall with 13 runs of 20+ yards from scrimmage (NFL.com sorts at 20 and 40 yards +). To go further they were tied for 3rd in the league with 4 runs of 40+ yards. A quick look at the passing game has the Rams at a more expected 27th overall in passing plays of 20+.

Secondly if you sort the big play list by +/- it will restack things with overall consideration for big plays gained vs big plays given up. From that perspective the Rams finish much more expectedly, at middle of the pack. Which is not a surprise given the way the defense blew coverages in the first half of the season.

There are a lot of different ways we can look at this type of information, but one thing it demonstrates to me is that the Rams have some significant big play potential coming out of that offensive backfield. Mason clearly brings that to the Rams offense, and they have also added Gurley. The fact that they finished middle of the pack in avg per rush tells me that they did not run block well, and also that teams probably stacked the box on run down/distance plays (which fits what I recall from watching the games).

Also one last note... There is a link from that page to Toxic Differential which is a stat taking into account that Big Play differential along with turnover differential which gives a very nice look at where the Rams were overall last season (16th). Yeah, I know, I'm bored. Bring on that camp plz.

 

[DaveFan'51]

I have two for you;

" The mis-Directed KR!"

And

" The Big Leap!"

 

[VeteranRamFan]

I have two for you;

View attachment 7148

" The mis-Directed KR!"

And

View attachment 7149

" The Big Leap!"

With the new rule this year where a blocked extra point attempt can be returned for 2 points by the defense, I see this play as being a BIG factor.

 

[-X-]

I like that Toxic Differential stat. It just makes sense. I know people like to take aim at "made-up stats" and dismiss them immediately if they don't show a team in a certain light, but that one I think has a lot of merit. If the Rams' turnover differential wasn't so poor last year, and they didn't give up so many big runs (early on), they probably would have notched at least three more wins.

 

[Merlin]

I like that Toxic Differential stat. It just makes sense. I know people like to take aim at "made-up stats" and dismiss them immediately if they don't show a team in a certain light, but that one I think has a lot of merit. If the Rams' turnover differential wasn't so poor last year, and they didn't give up so many big runs (early on), they probably would have notched at least three more wins.

Definitely. And that is one of the reasons my expectations this season are so high. I cannot imagine them starting the season with all the miscommunications and mistakes that plagued them in the first half last year.

What is scary about the Rams IMO is that if you stack their personnel against other rosters around the league it is clear their WR/TE types are as good as any in terms of big play potential i.e. raw talent. Add that in with a high number of big plays in the running game in spite of poor OL blocking last season not to mention drafting an even more dangerous RB, and this offense has downright obscene potential to bust big plays.

I honestly think that if Foles stays healthy and this OL is just solid we might see an explosion of scoring ability that rivals '98-'99 in terms of improvement. Craziness to suggest such a thing, I realize, but the ingredients are there.

 

[Fatbot]

The "made-up stat" complaint applies to PFF type things where they are trying to pass subjective grading off as factual statements about talent. "Toxic differential" is just a tally of turnovers and plays over 25 yards, there's nothing made-up to it.

Now, the conclusions drawn from toxic differential can be debated. Why do some teams have the biggest toxic differential success? Are they the best teams? Or just lucky? Or a mix of both? You get into causation versus correlation issues -- do the teams with the biggest toxic differentials have good win-loss records because of it? Or vice-versa?

Looking at the 2 components, studies of year-to-year correlations of turnover margin concluded that just over half of turnover margin can be chalked up to luck. I suspect "big plays" also has a huge degree of luck as well but have not found any study of year-to-year correlations.

Just looking at the list, however, one team stands out over and over at the top the past few years -- the 49ers. Even last year that bad team was still #4 in toxic differential. To me this is classic luck over skill and a tribute to Jim Harbaugh's true legacy -- just so much luck that inflated his success -- that even at the end allowed that bad team to finish 8-8 instead of a proper 4-12 debacle that would have avoided the misplaced "woe is the 49er offseason" dirges we're seeing.

More fun reading:

Toxic differential here: http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/toxic-differential/2014/

Fun reminder about some lucky plays in history: http://mancave.cbslocal.com/2014/01/27/football-accidental-awesomeness-its-all-in-the-wrist/

Reminder of some "luck" stats, like record in close games and defensive touchdowns your offense coughs up (*cough* Rams!): http://grantland.com/features/nfl-stats-predicting-success/