The Bears and the Passing Paradox

[defiantgiant]

So I've been wondering, as I'm sure a lot of you have, why the Bears have totally abandoned the run this season. It's clear that the running game hasn't been great (although the Beekman/Omiyale swap has helped immensely) but even considering that, I haven't been able to figure out why Turner would go a whole game and only call 6 or 8 runs for Forte.

 

To that end, here's an article from Advanced NFL Stats that's very, very worth reading, especially as it helps explain the Bears' struggles this season. The author applies some very in-depth statistical analysis and economic theory to football teams' decision-making, in terms of both their run/pass ratio and their preference either for short, low-risk passes or long, high-risk ones. If you don't want to read the whole 3-part article, here are the relevant conclusions:

 

1.) A run/pass ratio that favors running the ball at or above an "optimal level" is correlated with winning, but that's because winning teams are usually teams that can get a lead with their passing game early and maintain it on defense, which then allows them to run the ball a lot in order to kill the clock.

2.) Teams with lots of wins tend to have good defenses and a low tolerance for risk in their offensive playcalling*.

3.) Poor defense forces teams to be more tolerant of risk, and hence to call more passes than runs and more high-risk passes than low-risk passes, when compared to teams that play good defense.

4.) Teams that are good at passing don't have to do it very often: a high average gain on a passing play allows a team to mix in a healthy number of smaller-gain run plays.

5.) #4 leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that a team with an ineffective passing game will be forced to call MORE pass plays than a team with an effective one. Good passing teams don't have to play to their strengths, and poor passing teams have to play to their weaknesses.

 

So how does this all apply to the 2009 Bears? Well, I don't have access to the author's raw data, nor to the relevant data for this season, but the broad principles are easy to apply. First, the Bears have a poor defense, which forces them to ramp up the risk in what was already a high-risk offense, which leads to more passes than runs. Second, their inability to get an early lead (and the frequency with which opposing teams get one) forces them to pass rather than run. Finally, the fact that this one-dimensional passing offense is easier to defend against (and thus less effective) forces the Bears to rely on the pass even more, and become even more one-dimensional. When your passing game is faltering, you can't rely on a little 2- or 3-yard run to get you out of the hole; you need the exact thing you can't get, a big completion through the air. So you have to go back to the pass even more.

 

Basically, good defense leads to run-heavy offense, which leads to effective passing. Poor defense leads to pass-heavy offense, which leads to ineffective passing, which leads to an even more pass-heavy offense. If you ask me, that describes this season's Bears to a T. Until the defense gets fixed, we're going to see a lot more games where Forte gets single-digit carries, and a lot more opposing defenses who have Cutler's number from the opening drive onward.

 

 

*The 2006 Bears are a notable exception, as they piled up a large number of wins with a good defense and a higher-than-average-risk offense: "The NFC champion Bears managed 13 wins with a relatively risky offensive balance. This is due to their boom and bust passing game (μP = 4.8, σP=15.1). This result suggests that in 2006 CHI rolled the dice often with deep pass plays and got lucky. 2007 wasn't so kind to them."

[nfoligno]

Nice arguments, but I think it is a bit more simple than that.

 

See bears try to run. See bears run get stopped. See bears pass the ball more.

 

IMHO, that is a big reason we have seen so many WR screens this year. Everyone trash talks those screens, but I think we are using those instead of a run. Even when those screens are well defended, they usually get a few yards, which is as much or more than a run would get us. Meanwhile, I think there is a greater chance for those screens to get bigger yardage.

 

You can look at the defense, or point to any other area you believe stats will back it up. At the end of the day, we pass the ball because we can't run it.

 

So I've been wondering, as I'm sure a lot of you have, why the Bears have totally abandoned the run this season. It's clear that the running game hasn't been great (although the Beekman/Omiyale swap has helped immensely) but even considering that, I haven't been able to figure out why Turner would go a whole game and only call 6 or 8 runs for Forte.

 

To that end, here's an article from Advanced NFL Stats that's very, very worth reading, especially as it helps explain the Bears' struggles this season. The author applies some very in-depth statistical analysis and economic theory to football teams' decision-making, in terms of both their run/pass ratio and their preference either for short, low-risk passes or long, high-risk ones. If you don't want to read the whole 3-part article, here are the relevant conclusions:

 

1.) A run/pass ratio that favors running the ball at or above an "optimal level" is correlated with winning, but that's because winning teams are usually teams that can get a lead with their passing game early and maintain it on defense, which then allows them to run the ball a lot in order to kill the clock.

2.) Teams with lots of wins tend to have good defenses and a low tolerance for risk in their offensive playcalling*.

3.) Poor defense forces teams to be more tolerant of risk, and hence to call more passes than runs and more high-risk passes than low-risk passes, when compared to teams that play good defense.

4.) Teams that are good at passing don't have to do it very often: a high average gain on a passing play allows a team to mix in a healthy number of smaller-gain run plays.

5.) #4 leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that a team with an ineffective passing game will be forced to call MORE pass plays than a team with an effective one. Good passing teams don't have to play to their strengths, and poor passing teams have to play to their weaknesses.

 

So how does this all apply to the 2009 Bears? Well, I don't have access to the author's raw data, nor to the relevant data for this season, but the broad principles are easy to apply. First, the Bears have a poor defense, which forces them to ramp up the risk in what was already a high-risk offense, which leads to more passes than runs. Second, their inability to get an early lead (and the frequency with which opposing teams get one) forces them to pass rather than run. Finally, the fact that this one-dimensional passing offense is easier to defend against (and thus less effective) forces the Bears to rely on the pass even more, and become even more one-dimensional. When your passing game is faltering, you can't rely on a little 2- or 3-yard run to get you out of the hole; you need the exact thing you can't get, a big completion through the air. So you have to go back to the pass even more.

 

Basically, good defense leads to run-heavy offense, which leads to effective passing. Poor defense leads to pass-heavy offense, which leads to ineffective passing, which leads to an even more pass-heavy offense. If you ask me, that describes this season's Bears to a T. Until the defense gets fixed, we're going to see a lot more games where Forte gets single-digit carries, and a lot more opposing defenses who have Cutler's number from the opening drive onward.

 

 

*The 2006 Bears are a notable exception, as they piled up a large number of wins with a good defense and a higher-than-average-risk offense: "The NFC champion Bears managed 13 wins with a relatively risky offensive balance. This is due to their boom and bust passing game (μP = 4.8, σP=15.1). This result suggests that in 2006 CHI rolled the dice often with deep pass plays and got lucky. 2007 wasn't so kind to them."

 

[defiantgiant]

Nice arguments, but I think it is a bit more simple than that.

 

See bears try to run. See bears run get stopped. See bears pass the ball more.

 

IMHO, that is a big reason we have seen so many WR screens this year. Everyone trash talks those screens, but I think we are using those instead of a run. Even when those screens are well defended, they usually get a few yards, which is as much or more than a run would get us. Meanwhile, I think there is a greater chance for those screens to get bigger yardage.

 

You can look at the defense, or point to any other area you believe stats will back it up. At the end of the day, we pass the ball because we can't run it.

Here's the thing, though: the difference between a team that can't run the ball and a team that can isn't very much, in terms of yardage. Compare a crappy running team like the Bears (3.8 yards per carry, 26th in the league) to a great rushing team like the Panthers (4.8 YPC, 4th in the league) and the difference is a single yard per rush. You and I know that one yard is significant, in terms of separating the successful running teams from the unsuccessful ones, but it's not significant in terms of whether a coach chooses to run or pass.

 

To put it another way, if you're in a situation where you need 7 or 8 yards, it doesn't matter whether you're the Panthers or the Bears, you better throw it. If you're consistently in a position where you desperately need big yardage, like the Bears have been so often, you're going to be throwing it all the time. It wouldn't matter if the Bears were averaging 5 yards a carry, we couldn't afford to run it when we're constantly playing 21 points behind.

 

Look at the Bengals, who've been stomping everyone with their running game. Their average isn't very good at all: they're 22nd in the league with 4.0 per carry. But they're close to the top of the league in rushing attempts per game, so they pile up a lot of yards at the end of the day. And they can afford to run it a million times a game because they have a really solid defense and a highly effective passing game. If the Bears had the Bengals' defense and passing game, we could be effective running the ball even with a lowly 3.8 YPC.

[nfoligno]

Here's the thing, though: the difference between a team that can't run the ball and a team that can isn't very much, in terms of yardage. Compare a crappy running team like the Bears (3.8 yards per carry, 26th in the league) to a great rushing team like the Panthers (4.8 YPC, 4th in the league) and the difference is a single yard per rush. You and I know that one yard is significant, in terms of separating the successful running teams from the unsuccessful ones, but it's not significant in terms of whether a coach chooses to run or pass.

 

Totally disagree. If you are getting 3 ypc, you are not as likely to continue to run the ball a lot, as it simply is not working. If you are getting bigger chunks of yards though, you are more likely to carry the ball more.

 

You mention Carolina. Well, Carolina has a worse defense than we do, but because they are better running the ball, they have done it more often, and a lot more often. Carolina has over 1,400 yards rushing, compared to our 767. Despite their poor defense, they stick w/ the run because, simply put, they are good at running the ball.

 

Also, you mention our 3.8 ypc, but in reality, it is not even that good. Forte has a 3.4 ypc avg, yet Wolfe, AP and even Cutler all have solid ypc averages that skews the overall average.

 

To put it another way, if you're in a situation where you need 7 or 8 yards, it doesn't matter whether you're the Panthers or the Bears, you better throw it. If you're consistently in a position where you desperately need big yardage, like the Bears have been so often, you're going to be throwing it all the time. It wouldn't matter if the Bears were averaging 5 yards a carry, we couldn't afford to run it when we're constantly playing 21 points behind.

 

That might explain why we don't run well in a couple games, but we have only been blow out a couple times. Against SF, we were in that game until the end, yet Forte had about a 2 ypc average. It has not mattered whether our defense played well or not. We simply have not been able to run the ball.

 

You also say whether you are a good or bad team running the ball doesn't matter when you need 7 or 8 yards. Sure, but the argument is that when you are a good rushing football team, you do not as often need 7 or 8 yards on 3rd down. A good rushing football team gets more yards on 1st and/or 2nd down, putting you in better 3rd down situations. We are often in 3rd and long due to our inability to run the ball.

 

Look at the Bengals, who've been stomping everyone with their running game. Their average isn't very good at all: they're 22nd in the league with 4.0 per carry. But they're close to the top of the league in rushing attempts per game, so they pile up a lot of yards at the end of the day. And they can afford to run it a million times a game because they have a really solid defense and a highly effective passing game. If the Bears had the Bengals' defense and passing game, we could be effective running the ball even with a lowly 3.8 YPC.

 

Disagree again. The defense has been inconsistent, and at times blown out, but in plenty of games, our defense has kept the opponents score down. Look at the Atlanta game. We were never more than one score down, and in that game throughout. Our passing game was working as Cutler threw for 300 yards, yet despite our D playing fairly well and our passing game working, Forte ran the ball 15 times for 23 yards, or a 1.5 average.

 

Look, I agree it all connects. It is hard to run the ball when (a) your defense stinks and you are in a hole and ( your passing game is not clicking. By that same note though, it can also be argued that a defense struggles when the offense stinks and they are on the field all day, or the passing game struggles when you can't run the ball. It all goes together. You try to argue (I believe) that our inability to run the ball is due to our defensive struggles and inconsistency passing the ball, but I just can't agree. Even when our D plays well, and our passing game is working, our run game has still sucked.

 

 

 

[defiantgiant]

IMHO, that is a big reason we have seen so many WR screens this year. Everyone trash talks those screens, but I think we are using those instead of a run. Even when those screens are well defended, they usually get a few yards, which is as much or more than a run would get us. Meanwhile, I think there is a greater chance for those screens to get bigger yardage.

I forgot to mention this the first time around, but I totally, totally agree with you on the screens. They're the one thing on offense that has been consistently working pretty well. I think it's partly because Forte's a great receiver, but it's also that several of our linemen are actually pretty good on those downfield blocks. Kreutz and Chris Williams in particular can really set the bubble screen up nicely, and Garza's not bad at it either. I hope that, when he went over the tape from the Niners game, Turner realized that his otherwise-garbage offensive line is actually pretty effective at screen blocks. If we're going to cobble together a functional offense, Turner needs to start calling a lot more screen passes, and a lot more outside running plays that use the same kinds of blocks, like pulling-guard sweeps and traps.