I hope so, but you have to have an effective run game in order for play action to work properly. Most defenses have ignored the Lions run game and concentrated on stopping Stafford. Faking the hand-off took too much time and became a detriment due to lineman not taking the bait. The Lions were better off placing Stafford in the shotgun which allowed him to survey the field during the entire time of the play.
Not necessarily. There’s studies that have been done that don’t show the correlation of run game and play action success. And a lot of OLineman will tell you play action is sold by the OL selling run off the snap.
We are talking the Lions Badnews, not everybody else, they have always been an exception. From 2015 to 2017 the Lions were the worst rushing team in the NFL, so nobody cared if the Lions ran the ball. Opponent DL went straight for the QB on most every play. The scheme of Caldwell and Cooter did not set up the pass through a run game, they were exactly the opposite. Play action was nothing more than a long hand-off that resulted in high passer rating. Taking time to perform the fake actually took time from Stafford to survey the field, so a dump off was required to slow footed RBs with poor down field blocking limiting gained yards. Also, sacks, knock downs, and pressures don't count against passer rating. My bet, Stafford ending up on the ground during most play action pass plays. I am just spouting my impression of the Lions offense during the years mentioned. Play action was not effective for the Lions due to slow RBs and poor OLs which equated to near bottom PA usage.
Last Edit: Jul 2, 2019 4:01:55 GMT -6 by liongeezer
Post by badnews3123 on Jul 2, 2019 11:51:47 GMT -6
I’m telling you there’s studies out there that say otherwise, you disagree. That’s fine, just letting you know there’s data out there.
As for Lions not being successful in play action, that’s really not true. They’ve actually been good in play action, they just didn’t use it a ton. Though as a I point out, most teams are better using play action, so you could argue Lions have been like most teams and have just under-utilized play action.
It may well be under-utilized but that certainly doesn't make it a detriment.
I don't disagree with you but there is also point where if you use something too much it becomes less effective. Sort of a law of diminishing returns. So perhaps they should use it more but not go too crazy.
I do agree with Geezer to an extent that the Lions running game was so bad at times I can't imagine teams were really worried about the run on play action despite the "studies".
It may well be under-utilized but that certainly doesn't make it a detriment.
I don't disagree with you but there is also point where if you use something too much it becomes less effective. Sort of a law of diminishing returns. So perhaps they should use it more but not go too crazy.
I do agree with Geezer to an extent that the Lions running game was so bad at times I can't imagine teams were really worried about the run on play action despite the "studies".
Wouldn’t they have struggled more in play-action then? No defensive player is going to ignore keys and just pin his ears back, because if he loses contain or a LB is out of position, they’re going to get destroyed by coaching staff.
That’s pretty assinine to want to blow it up if they miss the playoffs in a new HCs second year. Caldwell was forced on Quin so imo he gets a pass forchavingvto keep him. Lets see how the lions do in year 3 of Patricia before over reacting
Post by badnews3123 on Jul 23, 2019 12:19:12 GMT -6
I’d want to see how the season played out, but let’s be honest. Patricia didn’t inherit a “bad” team. So if in the first two years after inheriting a team that went 9-7 you go 6-10 and 7-9, I can see the team not wanting to wait on year 3. Especially when you consider a lot of what they’ve done the last 2 years was to get Patricia his guys.