Haynes King: Run/Pass Mix Results

[Randy Carson]

Something I noticed...

When Haynes King carries 10 or more times in a game...we LOSE.

OPP	CARRIES	YARDS	W/L
LOU	10	53	L
SC State	1	0	W
Ole Miss	14	42	L
Wake	6	53	W
BG	10	28	L
Miami	10	46	W*
BC	10	150	L
UNC	8	90	W

*"But wait, Randy...what about the Miami game?"

Yeah, we won the game, but was there any doubt about the outcome PRIOR to the last 30 seconds?

So, when King is being harassed and forced to run, we lose. When he has time in the pocket to hit his receivers (or he runs by design?), we win.

Waddya think? Is this a thing or not?

 

[kittysniper101]

I'd really like to differentiate between called runs and scrambles in the data. I agree if all the runs are scrambles it's not a good sign for our offense and team as a whole. I've been calling for King to be more involved in the run game either in read plays or called runs and you can see why in the UNC game. It really worked in BC too, but unfortunately the rest of our offense was out of sync and unable to capitalize. You should never play down a man in the run game (not saying every play needs to be a read, but the threat needs to be credible).

 

[CuseJacket]

Does this include sacks?

If so, then my interpretation is "if you lose at the line of scrimmage, you lose". I agree.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Yep, the interpretation is that OLines win or lose football games. Always will be that way until they go to 7 man two hand touch. Skilled position players are a dime a dozen outside of the freaks so it’s always about the Lines.

 

[jgtengineer]

Sacks count as runs.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Sacks count as runs.

Actually, I think it counts as passing yards, but I could be wrong.

Never mind. It counts against team passing yards in the pros and team rushing yards in college, but does not impact individual statistics.

 

[UgaBlows]

His runs vs. Miami were what kept us in that game and gave us the chance

 

[jgtengineer]

Actually, I think it counts as passing yards, but I could be wrong.

Never mind. It counts against team passing yards in the pros and team rushing yards in college, but does not impact individual statistics.

It very much impacted indivdual statistics for a very long time.

There were several games in JT's career he lost out on 100 yards games due to sacks. So if they changed that thats good.

 

[swarmer]

Does this include sacks?

If so, then my interpretation is "if you lose at the line of scrimmage, you lose". I agree.

He’s only taken 7 sacks all year

 

[CuseJacket]

He’s only taken 7 sacks all year

In which games?

 

[swarmer]

In which games?

Miami 1
BG 3
Ole miss 2
Lou 1

 

[LongforDodd]

Miami 1
BG 3
Ole miss 2
Lou 1

Look at that...gave up three sacks to BG. I sure hope that what we saw Saturday night was growth progression and not an anomaly.

 

[Vespidae]

Something I noticed...

When Haynes King carries 10 or more times in a game...we LOSE.

OPP	CARRIES	YARDS	W/L
LOU	10	53	L
SC State	1	0	W
Ole Miss	14	42	L
Wake	6	53	W
BG	10	28	L
Miami	10	46	W*
BC	10	150	L
UNC	8	90	W

*"But wait, Randy...what about the Miami game?"

Yeah, we won the game, but was there any doubt about the outcome PRIOR to the last 30 seconds?

So, when King is being harassed and forced to run, we lose. When he has time in the pocket to hit his receivers (or he runs by design?), we win.

Waddya think? Is this a thing or not?

There are all sorts of models for this sort of stuff, not GT-specific, but others have done something similar. I looked into it a few years ago. Off the top of my head ..

• Net passing yards. Las Vegas bookies use this stat. Teams which have the highest net passing yards tend to win more often than not.
• Hidden yardage. Bill Parcells said every game can be predicted by a) hidden yardage and b) turnovers. Hidden yardage is the yardage AFTER a pass or kick reception. He also said that every hundred yards in offensive production should equal one TD in score. So, if you are generating 600 yards in offense but only scored 14 points, fire the OC.
• Field position. Bear Bryant and Bobby Dodd both loved this one. Bryant quipped once that he didn't care what offense or what defense he ran, as long as he had average starting position at the 50. Statistically, its nearly impossible to lose a game doing so.

I forget who said it, but one coach said the whole game is based on making fewer mistakes ... e.g., dropped passes, stalled drives, turnovers, etc. If you get the ball at the 25, statistically, you will make a mistake in 7-8 plays. So, you have to get to midfield and try for a 30+yard gain. Not so much to advance, but to make fewer total mistakes. (Saban said something like this too ... "All I want is for each play to be performed exactly as planned.) Mistake free is another reason why Bryant preferred the midfield position ... cuts mistake opportunities in half.

Interesting to see how different coaches in different eras react to the game.

 

[takethepoints]

I'd really like to differentiate between called runs and scrambles in the data. I agree if all the runs are scrambles it's not a good sign for our offense and team as a whole. I've been calling for King to be more involved in the run game either in read plays or called runs and you can see why in the UNC game. It really worked in BC too, but unfortunately the rest of our offense was out of sync and unable to capitalize. You should never play down a man in the run game (not saying every play needs to be a read, but the threat needs to be credible).

I said ths in another thread.

King now has the one thing that can make him an effective runner: a credible RB for double options. Tech has had those plays in for awhile now, but until we got Smith back on the field classic double option QB reads were not believable and were ignored by the D. When the other side sees that there is an excellent chance that they'll get hit by an explosive play if the RB gets the ball, then pulling it and running to the hole created by their commitment to get him works just fine. And King can run, especially when the opposing D is flummoxed by the possibilities.

Now all we have to do is keep Smith healthy and give him some holes to choose. That'll make everything easier for King.

 

[Randy Carson]

I said ths in another thread.

King now has the one thing that can make him an effective runner: a credible RB for double options. Tech has had those plays in for awhile now, but until we got Smith back on the field classic double option QB reads were not believable and were ignored by the D. When the other side sees that there is an excellent chance that they'll get hit by an explosive play if the RB gets the ball, then pulling it and running to the hole created by their commitment to get him works just fine. And King can run, especially when the opposing D is flummoxed by the possibilities.

Now all we have to do is keep Smith healthy and give him some holes to choose. That'll make everything easier for King.

The nagging question in my mind is: How did we find ourselves in the position of only having one decent RB on the team whose availability makes or breaks us?

What if we were to get two or three good backs and line them all up in the backfield in various formations and motions?

Then on every play, King could read the defense and choose from 2, maybe 3 options such as handing the ball off up the middle, pitching it to a back or keeping it? Every now and then, he could throw the long 'tater.

We should look into this more.

 

[bke1984]

Something I noticed...

When Haynes King carries 10 or more times in a game...we LOSE.

OPP	CARRIES	YARDS	W/L
LOU	10	53	L
SC State	1	0	W
Ole Miss	14	42	L
Wake	6	53	W
BG	10	28	L
Miami	10	46	W*
BC	10	150	L
UNC	8	90	W

*"But wait, Randy...what about the Miami game?"

Yeah, we won the game, but was there any doubt about the outcome PRIOR to the last 30 seconds?

So, when King is being harassed and forced to run, we lose. When he has time in the pocket to hit his receivers (or he runs by design?), we win.

Waddya think? Is this a thing or not?

I think what's funny about some of those losses is that I though if he had run more we would have been more productive. Particularly against BG, but also BC. It's almost like he was running more because that's what they were giving him, but he wouldn't take it and instead threw interceptions. Dude is way faster than he looks and when they give him a lane he needs to take it.

 

[slugboy]

I think what's funny about some of those losses is that I though if he had run more we would have been more productive. Particularly against BG, but also BC. It's almost like he was running more because that's what they were giving him, but he wouldn't take it and instead threw interceptions. Dude is way faster than he looks and when they give him a lane he needs to take it.

In a couple of losses, I saw a clear path to a first down running where he threw a riskier pass which went incomplete. In some of those losses, maybe we’d have won with more runs.

I don’t think he should play like a fullback, but he should take “safe” runs.

Sometimes, I think he needs more options—maybe not a keep option, but a pass option or an option with the slot.

Maybe what this shows is that when teams take away plan A, then plan B isn’t good and we lean on “run for your life”.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

In a couple of losses, I saw a clear path to a first down running where he threw a riskier pass which went incomplete. In some of those losses, maybe we’d have won with more runs.

I don’t think he should play like a fullback, but he should take “safe” runs.

Sometimes, I think he needs more options—maybe not a keep option, but a pass option or an option with the slot.

Maybe what this shows is that when teams take away plan A, then plan B isn’t good and we lean on “run for your life”.

One of the things I have wondered about is running a few run / pass option plays on a roll out. I know it’s hard to throw across your body but it would be fun if the defense had to worry about a roll out play to either side of the field.

 

[Root4GT]

One of the things I have wondered about is running a few run / pass option plays on a roll out. I know it’s hard to throw across your body but it would be fun if the defense had to worry about a roll out play to either side of the field.

I have noticed Ling throws rolling left are not nearly as good as rolling right. Hope he can improve that over the off season

 

[CEB]

The nagging question in my mind is: How did we find ourselves in the position of only having one decent RB on the team whose availability makes or breaks us?

What if we were to get two or three good backs and line them all up in the backfield in various formations and motions?

Then on every play, King could read the defense and choose from 2, maybe 3 options such as handing the ball off up the middle, pitching it to a back or keeping it? Every now and then, he could throw the long 'tater.

We should look into this more.

Who is the one running back who you feel makes or breaks us?

Up until Saturday night, I think this was a legit question. Now I am happy to see that we’ve had a second RB emerge (or re-emerge, as the case may be).