The Bears Running Game in the Trenches (or in a ditch?)
A couple of weeks ago, we looked at running back Elusive rating (link). Elusive rating breaks down a running backs performance based on the yardage he gets after first contact or avoiding a tackler. According to those results, Matt Forte & Chester Taylor, have a lot of work to do. This week we'll look at runs for no gain by our backs, and how the Bears offensive line run blocks.
I've mentioned them before, but ProFootballFocus does some excellent statistical work in rating NFL players at all positions. Sam Monson wrote an article titled, "Runs for No Gain" which looks at the relationship of offensive lines and running backs. (link)
The running game is a complicated process at the NFL level. Between the performance of the running backs themselves, the performance of a line of blockers working in harmony in front of them, and the performance of each of the eleven defenders on any given play there are a massive amount of variables that go into every rush, all of which ends up as a simple figure -- a rush for X number of yards.
****
The numbers show a clear and stark correlation with the performance of a team’s offensive line during the 2009 season, as you would expect. But there are also some players who managed to buck that trend and some interesting dynamics within teams between players that of course are rushing behind the same set of blockersd
Firstly, a look at just how strong the relationship between the performance of an O-line is and the ability of rushers to avoid no-gain runs. Minnesota’s Adrian Peterson managed to rank ninth in the Elusive Rating, and fumbles aside, is widely considered one of the league’s toughest runners. But with 23.8 percent of his rushes last season for no gain or worse, he had the ninth-poorest percentage figure in the NFL. His stable mate in the Minnesota backfield, Chester Taylor, was one of the eight other rushers to record a poorer mark. This matches up clearly with our grading data, which shows Minnesota had the league’s worst run blocking unit on offense last season.
Chester Taylor had 27 carries (out of 103) that went for no gain last year (58th). Out of 32 teams, PFF had the Minnesota offense has the 32nd ranked run blocking unit. No wonder he did poorly. The all-world Adrian Peterson had 87 out of 367 carries for no gain (53rd).
If we look at the FootballOutsider's stats. The Minnesota offensive line did not rate so poorly, but still not good. (link) Minnesota had an adjusted line yards ranking of 20th, Power Success of 23rd, & Stuffed rank of 31st.
We can't make too many predictions with all this data about Chester Taylor's ability to push forward for some hard yards, because his "No Gain" stats were in line with his running mate & the quality of his offensive line.
But why are we talking so much about the Vikings? What about the Bears?
Matt Forte had 54 carries out of 258 carries that went for no gain. That percentage of 20.9% puts him at 44th in the league. The Bears run blocking ranked 20th according to PFF. According to FO, Chicago's offensive line had an adjusted line yards ranking of 19th, Power Success of 25th, & Stuffed rank of 16th. Chicago's O-line was slightly better than Minnesota's in run blocking and as a result Forte's runs for no gain were slightly better. Adrian Peterson's 1,383 yards, 4.4 ypc, and 18 TD's has more to do with him being awesomer than Chester Taylor (or Matt Forte) and not the quality of Minnesota's offensive line.
The Bears' offensive line was pretty mediocre when run blocking; Matt Forte had mediocre "No Gain" run stats. The big question is what improvements will both make this coming season.
The "No Gain" article is meant not to draw absolute conclusions about a specific running back or a specific offensive line. But when they see outliers or major differences between teammates, you can infer about a back being great (or bad) or a product of a great (or bad) offensive line.
The final mention goes to the Oakland Raiders, and this time it’s for something positive. According to our grades, there were only four teams to finish the season with a poorer mark for run blocking on offense than Oakland, and so naturally you would expect that their running backs ranked fairly low down in this study. But quite the opposite is true.
Darren McFadden narrowly fails to crack the top 10, finishing in 12th with just 15.4 percent of his rushes failing to gain yardage. But Michael Bush is the standout of the study, topping the list of runners with 11.4 percent of his 123 carries failing to gain yardage. Bush’s figure is a clear 2 percent better than anybody else in the study, and the next three players all ran behind excellent run-blocking units.
NoGainExcel <-click here to download spreadsheet of data.
Top Ten (includes all playoff stats): Michael Bush, Shonn Greene, Tashard Choice, Pierre Thomas, Fred Jackson, Laurence Maroney, Kevin Faulk (NE 2nd best Run Block rating), Ricky Williams, Jason Snelling, Ray Rice.
Bottom Ten: Derrick Ward, AP, Knowshon Moreno, Kevin Smith, Jerious Norwood, Ahmad Bradshaw, Chester Taylor, Glen Coffee, Steve Slaton, & last is Donald Brown.
For more statistical analysis of the Bears' offensive line, see here & here.
27 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I feel smarter now
Solid work!
"When I played pro football, I never set out to hurt anyone deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." ~ Dick Butkus
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on May 26, 2010 11:23 AM CDT reply actions
did that really take much?
zoom, zoom, zoom
-------
the artist formerly known as "smudgers"
by David Taylor on May 26, 2010 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions
unfortunately no….
"When I played pro football, I never set out to hurt anyone deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." ~ Dick Butkus
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on May 26, 2010 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Peppers lining up with Williams should help him get better.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan [I have always lived in Arizona, dad is from Chicago].
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad. And don't switch to whichever team wins the Super Bowl each year.
Great post!
Lots of things to digest, but none of it fodder.
I guess my only comment would be how much should we assume Martz will run the ball in 2010?
Historically, Martz’s offenses have ran the ball 40% or less in each of his three stops as OC/HC.
I think, we as Bears fans, might take a bit of time to get used to the Bears not running the ball as often as Bears offenses have in the past under Smith, Jauron, or Wannstedt (Bleh!).
Semper Fi
fwiw...
We only ran the ball about 40% last year.
-------
the artist formerly known as "smudgers"
by David Taylor on May 26, 2010 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions
We get off the bus running.
Thank you.
That is all.
"When I played pro football, I never set out to hurt anyone deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." ~ Dick Butkus
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on May 26, 2010 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions
We got off the bus running
out of plays that are both unpredictable and defendable.
But that was LAST year.
by Suffering from Chicago Sports on May 26, 2010 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions
off the bus running...
to the sideline?
Please, call me Juicebox.
by BearNecessities on May 26, 2010 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Perhaps...
… But, the year before that we ran the ball 53%.
Semper Fi
by ChicagoMarine on May 27, 2010 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions
Decade Review
2009: 563 pass attempts, 373 rush attempts, 936 total – 60.15% pass ratio
2008: 528 pass attempts, 434 rush attempts, 962 total – 54.89% pass ratio
2007: 569 pass attempts, 423 rush attempts, 992 total – 57.36% pass ratio
2006: 514 pass attempts, 503 rush attempts, 1017 total – 50.54% pass ratio
2005: 418 pass attempts, 488 rush attempts, 906 total – 46.14% pass ratio
2004: 471 pass attempts, 430 rush attempts, 901 total – 52.28% pass ratio
2003: 515 pass attempts, 443 rush attempts, 958 total – 53.76% pass ratio
2002: 543 pass attempts, 382 rush attempts, 925 total – 58.70% pass ratio
2001: 528 pass attempts, 475 rush attempts, 1003 total – 52.64% pass ratio
2000: 542 pass attempts, 417 rush attempts, 959 total – 56.52% pass ratio
Disclaimer: I’m not sure where these numbers stack up against the rest of the league.
That said, we’ve passed 54.30 percent of the time, averaged out over the past decade. Reviewing our pass-to-run percentage like this shows that we really haven’t been that far off of what Martz is gonna do.
Basically, what I’m saying is that yes, our offense will be a little more pass heavy. But to me, the biggest difference (hopefully) will really be shown in the efficiency of that aspect of our game.
• • •
Attempts collected from pro-football-reference.com
-------
Stupid babies need the most attention!
by David Taylor on May 27, 2010 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions
Its sort of like that most misleading overused stat that says than when teams run the ball X number of times they win said games.
When teams establish a big lead, usually by efficiently ran offenses that are balanced, they go to the run to kill the clock. The number of carries is falsely inflated by the early success of the offense and not because running the ball creates wins.
If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.
by Just Dave on May 27, 2010 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1000
When announcers or “analysts” mention that stat it bothers me, it’s lazy.
by Mike Mueller on May 27, 2010 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Huh?
announcers and analysts are lazy…
"When I played pro football, I never set out to hurt anyone deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." ~ Dick Butkus
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on May 27, 2010 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions
agreed.
-------
Stupid babies need the most attention!
by David Taylor on May 27, 2010 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Nice Post
Very informative. We will not have the same results this year. I fully expect our squad to improve in all aspects of their game.
The O-line is the deciding factor in determining a back’s ability to gain yardage. The syncronicity of the lineman AND the back are critical to success. The ability of the OL to create seams is nice, but their ability to create seams where and WHEN the back expects is what will give the back the big play and the lack of RFNG.
REPS, our OL needs REPS. We have 2 new guys out of 5 at their respective positions, at least. Coach Tice should make the OL live sleep and eat together. Build that chemistry. Our guys may not be the most athletically gifted, but we’ve got guys with heart.
by Suffering from Chicago Sports on May 26, 2010 1:04 PM CDT reply actions
Kind of on topic,
but mostly off.
Seifert just posted an article that tracked broken tackles: by the RBs and against the defense. LINK>>
-------
the artist formerly known as "smudgers"
Before looking at this chart, I wouldn’t have guessed Matt Forte had more broken tackles than Ryan Grant. But if Forte averaged 3.6 yards per carry even after breaking more tackles than all but one NFC North player, maybe we need to shift more accountability to the Bears’ scheme and blocking performance last season.
I wonder if there’s a “number of times hit in the backfield” statistic (and how many of those were misses).
"44 years of football history and nothing to show for it. I wish I wasn’t banned at the Norseman.." - tfrabotta
I saw in an article the other day..
Where it said the biggest difference between this scheme and the previous one is the first step. Turner’s scheme called for the o-line to take a step to the side where as Tice expects for his lineman to fire straight off the ball. I think that in itself would account for some major improvements.
Adrian Pedestrian!! Now that's funny Mr. Bayless...
I remember fully expecting/hoping the bears to pick michael bush when he fell to them...
their actual pick? Garrett Wolfe.
ooops
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on May 27, 2010 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions

by 
























