|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| MIN 2017 (Shurmur): 11 personnel - 57% 12 personnel - 23% 21 personnel - 5% 13 personnel - 3% 22 personnel - 8% 10 personnel - 1% 01 personnel - 0% 20 personnel - 2% 23 personnel - 1% NYG 2016 (McAdoo): 11 personnel - 92% 12 personnel - 5% 22 personnel - 0% 10 personnel - 2% 01 personnel - 0% NYG 2017 (Sullivan): 11 personnel - 52% 12 personnel - 21% 21 personnel - 4% 13 personnel - 3% 22 personnel - 3% 10 personnel - 14% 01 personnel - 1% 20 personnel - 2% 23 personnel - 0% 00 personnel - 1% 02 personnel - 0% |
Whereas, outside zone run left, classic line up, you can run that...run inside zone left guard, run counter...roll out right, QB designed run right...
Multi skilled players like E.E. can also help confuse the 'tells'...start in 13...go to 12...5 wide (2 wrs 3 ,'te's)
for instance, maybe strength of TE's were better, using hypothetically, in minny than giants, thus, 12, 22, 02 were called more often than say, 21 etc etc
Or empty one side WR...
I may have said the formations wrong.
Just draft a great TE and suddenly we are super multiple.
Or empty one side WR...
I may have said the formations wrong.
Just draft a great TE and suddenly we are super multiple.
I agree with that, but it's in large part due to the versatility of Rhett Ellison playing both FB and TE.
Or...21 by pulling ellison back.
Supposedly lots of TEs this draft....
But that 02 could also be a great QB designed run formation. Lots of blockers. EE from slot is an above average blocker at that spot - as well as a legit receiving threat.
I'm pretty sure it's player dependent, and not like Idiot and JB are describing it.
Moving Engram has no effect on his being a TE. That's probably why his PFF grades suck. They have his TE-ness embedded pretty deep in their algorithms.
Oh I see what you mean. Yeah, I'm not sure about that...
Moving Engram has no effect on his being a TE. That's probably why his PFF grades suck. They have his TE-ness embedded pretty deep in their algorithms.
You're right about what it should be. I'm not sure why JB and IS think personnel and formation are interchangeable. Or why JB thinks Ellison's name is Ellis, but that's a separate issue.
Who are you even talking to? Is this another stream of consciousness?
A few posters back when this was a hot topic kept saying that running the same formation 90% of the time makes it easy for the defense to diagnose since only a handful of plays can be run.
The personnel grouping doesn't limit the number of plays (it may eliminate things like a handoff to a FB or a throw to a TE2 that doesn't exist, but technically it doesn't handcuff the depth of the playbook.
these threads are actually a pretty good way to figure out who knows stuff and who doesn't have a fucking clue.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure it's player dependent, and not like Idiot and JB are describing it.
Moving Engram has no effect on his being a TE. That's probably why his PFF grades suck. They have his TE-ness embedded pretty deep in their algorithms.
You're right about what it should be. I'm not sure why JB and IS think personnel and formation are interchangeable. Or why JB thinks Ellison's name is Ellis, but that's a separate issue.
You've got me questioning these numbers now. I guess very rough estimates are what they more likely are. There's no way 10 was run over 10% of the time. Ideally, that's just a mistake from counting Engram's 11 snaps as 10s.
Thanks for posting that!
It may be that they didn't trust the players in some ways....
..but,predictability obviously makes it far harder, not easier, for players to excel, so. Vicious cycle. Obviously the relative lower occurrence of play action is an easy way to see this.
I think he knew he didn't have the talent up front, and I don't think he had that much confidence in Eli given the frosty relationship. That has to play in to gameplans and playcalling tendencies.
Or that heaviest wins... Hehe
Teams defend what you run...not what you list on paper.
Regarding posters getting annoyed with the 11 personnel that McAdoo deployed 92% of the time, he ran the base formation out of that personnel grouping a lot: 1 RB, 1 TE and 1 WR on one side of the formation and two wide receivers on the other side of the formation. He didn't have much formation variation with that personnel grouping. That is what the fans, and I think the players, were annoyed with.
I get it: personnel grouping, not formation. But with versatile personnel, you can do a lot with formations and give the "look" of different personnel groupings. If Ellison is in backfield in I formation, he is a fullback (ie, a running back), and I really think I can argue that it is 21.
Link - ( New Window )
Regarding posters getting annoyed with the 11 personnel that McAdoo deployed 92% of the time, he ran the base formation out of that personnel grouping a lot: 1 RB, 1 TE and 1 WR on one side of the formation and two wide receivers on the other side of the formation. He didn't have much formation variation with that personnel grouping. That is what the fans, and I think the players, were annoyed with.
I get it: personnel grouping, not formation. But with versatile personnel, you can do a lot with formations and give the "look" of different personnel groupings. If Ellison is in backfield in I formation, he is a fullback (ie, a running back), and I really think I can argue that it is 21. Link - ( New Window )
That's a valid point regarding positional flexibility, but the only way that analyzing personnel groupings makes sense is to be formation-agnostic. The fact that Engram (as a situational WR) or Ellison (as a situational FB) have flexibility is great - the possibility that the Giants can run a 3WR I-formation, for example, out of 12 personnel gives them a lot of options, but it's still fundamentally 12 personnel. Otherwise, you're dealing with inconsistent data due to things like pre-snap motion, audibles, etc. And that's obviously not a change in personnel.
So. Simpler but in one sense much harder. Stand and wait for a dler to block.
So. Simpler but in one sense much harder. Stand and wait for a dler to block.
Holy shit, can you just open a word document on your computer instead?
People act as if players are simply calfed out of college with 100% pre+determined outcomes.
Bullshit.
Part of it is situation,opportunity, scheme (or what ever you call it, for fucks sake), training, coaching...personnel.formations
How is the 23 personnel package going to help the offense when it means that the team's best offensive weapon (Odell Beckham) will be on the sidelines?
He was also too inexperienced to have any idea what to do about it. I don't believe even veteran coaches can overcome a bad lineup, but there are things you can do to try even if it's just spinning wheels in mud.
You just wrote six posts, including two that began with "in other words," to try to explain away the fact that you don't know the difference between personnel and formation (and scheme, apparently).
But, very obviously it's not just that.
Players in great situations IMPROVE as players...and players in crap situations sometimes regress as players.
Under normal circumstances, I doubt a defense plays a different personnel when faced with 21 versus 12.
And that is the key to the different offensive personnel groupings - which one gives your offense the most favorable match-ups.
A few posters back when this was a hot topic kept saying that running the same formation 90% of the time makes it easy for the defense to diagnose since only a handful of plays can be run.
The personnel grouping doesn't limit the number of plays (it may eliminate things like a handoff to a FB or a throw to a TE2 that doesn't exist, but technically it doesn't handcuff the depth of the playbook.
these threads are actually a pretty good way to figure out who knows stuff and who doesn't have a fucking clue.
It's more than that FMiC, but you and others know that. Running a WCO with a savvy QB, but a group of Street FA WRs results on neither being on the same page...balls thrown to where the receiver should've been, but weren't.
Down & Distance & Field position narrows both personnel and formations, plays and routes. Pre-snap reads and blitzes give the QBs and Receivers 2.8 seconds to get the ball out.
8 or more in the box dictate
run plays be changed by the QB to pass plays, or 6 in the box from pass to run plays.
Most fans don't understand you can't run any time consuming routes other than WR screens, slants or sticks in 2.8 seconds. If your OL is as crappy as the Giants OL was in 2017, Eli didn't have 2.8 seconds.
welcome to BBI, home of the BBI police:
Under normal circumstances, I doubt a defense plays a different personnel when faced with 21 versus 12.
And that is the key to the different offensive personnel groupings - which one gives your offense the most favorable match-ups.
Well, doesn't it depend who those players are, to some extent? I mean, let's say that the 21 personnel includes Shane Smith at FB and Ellison at TE, but 12 includes Ellison and Engram. You don't think the defense might adjust their own personnel between those two groupings?
That's why analysis of personnel groupings should be formation-independent, IMO. Can the Giants (or any team) find advantageous match-ups by getting creative with their formations in how they deploy their personnel? Absolutely - that's one of the most intriguing games within the game. When the data blurs the line between personnel and formation, we lose the ability to follow that element of it.
It only contributes to the false assumption that the two are tied together.
If Engram is a TE, he has to be considered a TE no matter which position he lines up at, because a personnel grouping is a separate thing than a formation.
To me that's 'dancing on the head of a needle'
i.E. bit of a side issue, don't care all that much who ran what down to 10% 10 or what have you.
2. Talking about how our own team might deploy given players together in the field, in advantageous ways, that Mac didn't, and implications for new player types.
Often discussed using incorrect language, so what...there's a proactive way to address that and a crap way.
Thread broke down when a few from part 1 got rude or tried to police it.
To me that's 'dancing on the head of a needle'
i.E. bit of a side issue, don't care all that much who ran what down to 10% 10 or what have you.
2. Talking about how our own team might deploy given players together in the field, in advantageous ways, that Mac didn't, and implications for new player types.
Often discussed using incorrect language, so what...there's a proactive way to address that and a crap way.
Thread broke down when a few from part 1 got rude or tried to police it.
This is the part that you seem to miss because of your tendency to use "personnel" and "formation" interchangeably. Personnel is who you send into the game - by definition (and sometimes by intent), teams telegraph this to their opponent. Your formation is your opportunity to deploy that personnel in its most advantageous fashion.
How many times have we seen New England use 2-TE (12 or even 22 personnel) to draw the defense into a heavy personnel grouping on their side, then motion one or both TEs and/or a RB out wide or into the slot to create mismatches. And if the defense tries to stay with a personnel group that is better equipped to handle the pass, the Patriots have the bodies on the field to simply line up and run the ball.
That's not a matter of semantics - those mismatches come as a result of the personnel, which precedes the formation. Do you think they get as dramatic a mismatch if they send in 11, 10 or 01 personnel to begin with?
That's the point. That's why personnel analysis needs to be formation-agnostic, and why it matters to differentiate between those two terms.
PG is more universal, whereas many teams use their own language for formations and 'plays' , at the same time, the numerical system for PG, being more universal, is more talkable, (however, in your true language use, less accurate or helpful when you have players like EE who do many functions yet have only one title)
(inside the pylons)
''At the outset, please understand that there is a difference between personnel groupings and formations. Personnel groupings refer to the types of players that are on the field for the offense; wide receivers, tight ends, and running backs. '' (ok, thank you, point taken)
'' Formations designate where those players line up, either on the line of scrimmage, in the slot, or in the offensive backfield. Personnel groupings are the general concept discussed here,
>>>while formations and alignments are often team- and play-specific<<< ''
(less likely that fans will know what something is called)
''Future articles on this site will examine formations and alignments in-depth; the goal here is to familiarize readers with concepts and vernacular such as “Lining up five wide with their 20 personnel.”
Not the same at all.
Whereas with fans here, the discussion is often Giants centric:
We know that in 13 here, you are likely to have EE, Ellison and [?] and the insights gained from the league wide stats listed are fairly irrelevant.
So, wrong language but at least looking in the right place.
But your spot on with the Pats example, exactly where I was going as well by looking at a draftee TE this year.
You're 100% right that a TE like Howard Cross is very different from one like Evan Engram. But couldn't you say the same about a great blocking WR like Hines Ward vs a disinterested blocker like Randy Moss? Or a dominant outside threat like Julio Jones compared to a slot receiver like Sterling Shepard?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that any particular data point is immune to nuance, but that there is some value in pulling back from that granular level and taking a more macro view for certain analyses. And you can add some of that nuance back in, you can merge personnel with formation, etc. But you can't do any of it if the data itself is murky because it originated in a flawed manner.
IMO teams that win use their own self centric view to their own specific roster strengths and weaknesses and their own language for that.
PG ...and formation often simply serve to hide what the actual play is...and outlier players may determine the outcomes as they diverge from the typical use of player types.
So the PG numbers league wide might be fairly meaningless.
Better, maybe, to just look at particular teams in depth.
Then again, you MUST have WRs that know the play AND the route tree his teammates are running. You can have the same personnel package, even the same formation, but completely confuse the defense if the TE (Y) lines up where the X or H does or the RB lines up as a WR.