The Ringer seems to think so . . . and certainly the numbers back this up. The article says they run him too much between the tackles when outside runs would be more productive. For what it's worth . . . Link - ( New Window )
The only thing they were doing incorrectly was not getting him the football enough. The long run he broke was designed to go right up the gut and that's where the hole opened up.
He's actually become seemingly more productive the more we've been running him between the tackles.
It's hard to use him "incorrectly" - he just needs the ball.
But they're far more inconsistent I would think. This is exactly the opposite of all the hand-wringing about him being too boom or bust. I think he found a nice mix of consistent positive yardage and home run plays. Having the offense in 3rd and long all game because we're running plays that don't consistently yield yardage isn't good either.
This is such shallow thinking that is hard to know where to begin.... Â
"Then again, you could argue that Barkley’s spectacular season helps prove that a great running game doesn’t matter. Barkley has been even better than advertised, and the Giants are just 5–8. "
Classic article where someone has a theory and then needs to fit the facts to the theory.
RE: This is such shallow thinking that is hard to know where to begin.... Â
In comment 14218387 Peter from NH (formerly CT) said:
Quote:
"Then again, you could argue that Barkley’s spectacular season helps prove that a great running game doesn’t matter. Barkley has been even better than advertised, and the Giants are just 5–8. "
Classic article where someone has a theory and then needs to fit the facts to the theory.
Seriously. Without Barkley's spectacular season and running, it could easily be argued they'd be 1-12 or 2-11. Rediculous to even hint a great running game doesn't matter.
take advantage of Barkley's unique skills, he should be featured more in the passing game than a traditional RB. And with 78 catches (and 3 games to go), I'd argue they have done that. Barkley averages 6.5 yards per target as a "receiver" compared to "just" 5.4 yards/carry so increasing the proportion of his touches that are receptions rather than carries is really the best way to improve his (and the team's) efficiency. His yards/reception is the one area where I've been (relatively) disappointed. I was hoping to see him closer to 10 y/r like some of the elite pass catching RBs (Gurley/Kamara). Though Kamara has regressed to 8.4 y/r after 10.2 y/r last season.
I'd also be curious to see the same carry charts from the article broken down pre/post Brown's addition. Barkley average a good 4.68 yards/carry the first 8 games, but has upped that to a ridiculous 6.17 yards/carry since the bye. Are they running more efficiently to the inside? Is the distribution the same?
but I'm not sure if he actually showed anything that seemed like they were using him incorrectly.
His point is that they run him inside 55% of the time (and outside 45%), but the optimum distribution would be to flip those like they do with Gurley, Kamara, Gordon.
My biggest question is, have they made adjustments throughout the season, most notably with the addition of Brown to the lineup? Because Barkley's #s since the by are even more ridiculous than his overall season averages.
until I got to the end the guy started armchair quarterbacking the Giants.
He's on pace to have the greatest season ever by a rookie runningback in the history of the NFL, and the Giants are using him wrong.
Then he goes onto throw up a bunch of charts from other successful backs and offenses and criticizes the Giants for running Barkley too much up the middle. It's pretty simple to me, if Barkley were playing on those other teams, with the offensive lines of the other teams, then maybe he'd run off tackle more than he has. We've had Chad Wheeler and Flowers as RT for the year. The guy loses credibility with his "analysis" at the end, that was terrible.
BTW, that article reads like something from 2012 Â
Shurmur doesn't look at trends in the NFL, per his press conference this week, so he won't be able to consider this.
It is an interesting analysis. But there are so many variables to each situation that it's unfair to assume each situation is static; therefore, Barkley would have better results.
You'd need to dig further to truly compare - down and distance, type of defense for each run, personnel packages, main play call or audible, etc, etc.
I think the point about the low value or impact of running backs Â
Is that Barkley is having a phenomenal season, is either the best RB in football or on the very short list and despite that the Giants are 5-8. If the Giants QB was the best in football or on the very short list and was having as successful a season the Giants would not be 5-8, they would probably be working in a first round bye.
Obviously the Giants didn’t have the chance to choose a player who would be a top QB this season. But if one of Darnold/Allen/Rosen becomes that guy in the future their teams will be much better off.
Also I guess it’s not really RB that is the outlier there, it’s the QB just having such a huge impact. I think you can have a HOF talent having a career year at any other position and still have a bad football team.
trap of using stats to fit the narrative rather than the other way around.
There is no "optimum" run distribution that can be applied across all backs. There's likely an optimum distribution for each specific team, but I wouldn't expect any of those dumbasses to understand what that distribution is.
What works for Gurley is independent from what works for Barkley and other backs.
The Giants were 1-7 because the roster sucked.... Â
Is that Barkley is having a phenomenal season, is either the best RB in football or on the very short list and despite that the Giants are 5-8. If the Giants QB was the best in football or on the very short list and was having as successful a season the Giants would not be 5-8, they would probably be working in a first round bye.
Obviously the Giants didn’t have the chance to choose a player who would be a top QB this season. But if one of Darnold/Allen/Rosen becomes that guy in the future their teams will be much better off.
Also I guess it’s not really RB that is the outlier there, it’s the QB just having such a huge impact. I think you can have a HOF talent having a career year at any other position and still have a bad football team.
The Packers are like 5-7-1. The Saints have missed the playoffs multiple times.
Would the Giants be better than 5-8 right now.... Â
Is that Barkley is having a phenomenal season, is either the best RB in football or on the very short list and despite that the Giants are 5-8. If the Giants QB was the best in football or on the very short list and was having as successful a season the Giants would not be 5-8, they would probably be working in a first round bye.
Obviously the Giants didn’t have the chance to choose a player who would be a top QB this season. But if one of Darnold/Allen/Rosen becomes that guy in the future their teams will be much better off.
Also I guess it’s not really RB that is the outlier there, it’s the QB just having such a huge impact. I think you can have a HOF talent having a career year at any other position and still have a bad football team.
trap of using stats to fit the narrative rather than the other way around.
There is no "optimum" run distribution that can be applied across all backs. There's likely an optimum distribution for each specific team, but I wouldn't expect any of those dumbasses to understand what that distribution is.
What works for Gurley is independent from what works for Barkley and other backs.
Except Barkley's numbers do point to him being better on outside runs:
119 carries and 4.6 yards/carry between the guards
88 carries and 6.3 yards/carry outside
Sure those numbers might even out if we ran outside more, but that begs the old question...why not run it until they stop it?
As I mentioned earlier, this macro analysis also doesn't show if there are any changes throughout the season. Are they still running inside on 55+% of the plays? Have they adapted at all, particularly since the addition of Brown? Are these numbers still valid since the addition of Brown or are they now averaging more up the middle since they don't have a gaping hole at RG?
As the centerpiece of the offense, they went 4-1 after the bye. As Barkely has played his best games, the Giants have started winning. So I'm not really buying that argument, about Giants being bad in spite of Barkley. It's a tale of two seasons with the Giants in 2018.
Honestly, if they had fully committed to Barkley(referencing Eagles second half when they took their foot off the gas), they'd be 5-0 post bye and in much better shape to threaten for a playoff spot. Barkley is impacting the Giants chances of winning football games, that is undeniable.
is what opened up his game, vision, and shook him loose.
It's about creating a tick of hesitation in the defense, misdirection, keeping them on their heels, etc. PS has to get a feel for where to point the rush attack as a game develops.
is why they don't run more screen passes for him, instead of all those swing passes with nobody blowing for him. My recollection is that he's been excellent on screen passes this year but that we've run very few of them.
guy is threatening to break the all time rookie total yardage record....yet we are using him incorrectly.
'Incorrectly' is probably bad word choice. 'Non-optimally' would be more accurate assuming that the numbers aren't really skewed by the early season C-RG issues.
is what opened up his game, vision, and shook him loose.
It's about creating a tick of hesitation in the defense, misdirection, keeping them on their heels, etc. PS has to get a feel for where to point the rush attack as a game develops.
This is right. They coached him to run more north south and his numbers and production shot up big time.
Of Barkley early in the season that he had a tendency to run outside by default. The coaches made a concerted effort to get him more inside runs. How can one really argue with the results, especially of late?
is what opened up his game, vision, and shook him loose.
It's about creating a tick of hesitation in the defense, misdirection, keeping them on their heels, etc. PS has to get a feel for where to point the rush attack as a game develops.
This is right. They coached him to run more north south and his numbers and production shot up big time.
He also didn't have defenders flying through untouched.
I also wonder how they chart certain plays. Lets say a run is designed to go outside, but there's an unblocked LB/S on the edge. If Barkley cuts that play up the middle (between the guards) and just drives forward for 2-3 yards (a positive play under the circumstances), do they chart that as "between the guards" or as an "outside run"? You get 10-20 runs like that (~1.5 per game) and it could significantly skew the results.
saying "non-optimally" is misleading. I'm also not sure the numbers are correct running between the tackles vs. outside of them as two of Barkley's long runs started inside and ended up going to the outside, while he's lost yardage more frequently on outside runs vs. inside runs.
On his 25 runs for losses, 16 vs. 9 have been outside the tackles, including his longest losses of 7, 6 and 5 yards.
is what opened up his game, vision, and shook him loose.
It's about creating a tick of hesitation in the defense, misdirection, keeping them on their heels, etc. PS has to get a feel for where to point the rush attack as a game develops.
This is right. They coached him to run more north south and his numbers and production shot up big time.
He also didn't have defenders flying through untouched.
I also wonder how they chart certain plays. Lets say a run is designed to go outside, but there's an unblocked LB/S on the edge. If Barkley cuts that play up the middle (between the guards) and just drives forward for 2-3 yards (a positive play under the circumstances), do they chart that as "between the guards" or as an "outside run"? You get 10-20 runs like that (~1.5 per game) and it could significantly skew the results.
I think this exactly right. The amount of penetration the defense was getting early in the season was just unacceptable. He was getting re-routed almost immediately after getting the ball in most of the early games. There was another article where the charted the amount of negative or zero yardage run plays pre and post bye I think it was. The percentage was far to high to begin with(I think over 30%), and that number was cut in half post bye. Limiting the defensive penetration has been key as well.
saying "non-optimally" is misleading. I'm also not sure the numbers are correct running between the tackles vs. outside of them as two of Barkley's long runs started inside and ended up going to the outside, while he's lost yardage more frequently on outside runs vs. inside runs.
On his 25 runs for losses, 16 vs. 9 have been outside the tackles, including his longest losses of 7, 6 and 5 yards.
Well, assuming the numbers are correct, how is saying his usage is suboptimal misleading? His yards/carry is higher on outside runs, therefore if you increase the percentage of outside runs, you'd improve the efficiency of the offense (at least up to a point). You might get a few more negative runs, but those should be baked into the averages which means you're also getting a lot more long runs.
I'd wager their chances of scoring are substantially higher on drives that include a long run (20+) than they hurt by a single negative run.
he's talked about those kinds of moves before - he's making sure that nobody dives from behind and trips him before entering the end zone.
Doesn't even look like a "hurdle". No doubt the one last week was out of joy, but pointing to this one as a "celebratory hurdle" and evidence that he's having more fun than in college is off, imo.
only statistically sound if the average of running outside is static.
Basically the premise is - that outside runs are going longer for average, so we need to run more outside. That's using stats to dictate a strategy instead of building a strategy around a defensive scheme.
I'm sure most backs have a better average running wide, Why? Because the further you get to the edge, the fewer defenders you encounter.
It's really no different than saying a team has more 20+ yard plays that average, so they need to keep throwing the ball deep to be optimal.
but let me say this -- I love watching Barkley rip it up the gut -- it's a ting of booty!
The best part of the article:
Quote:
Above are two of Barkley’s 50-plus-yard rushing touchdowns this fall, clips that should offer a pretty strong indication that the Giants made a smart pick by taking him second overall in the 2018 draft. After all, 50-plus-yard rushing touchdowns are rare. No NFL player has notched more than two in a season since Adrian Peterson in 2012, when the then-Vikings star eclipsed 2,000 yards rushing and was named league MVP. There have been only 18 50-plus-yard rushing touchdowns during the entire 2018 season.
Barkley has four of them, along with a 57-yard receiving score. Entering Week 15, he has 1,753 yards from scrimmage (second in the league) with 13 total touchdowns (fourth). He’s the NFL’s most explosive player.
Charts are poor evidence - picking three random games Â
he's talked about those kinds of moves before - he's making sure that nobody dives from behind and trips him before entering the end zone.
Doesn't even look like a "hurdle". No doubt the one last week was out of joy, but pointing to this one as a "celebratory hurdle" and evidence that he's having more fun than in college is off, imo.
Agree, pretty sure there's some college clips where he does the "hurdle" too.
only statistically sound if the average of running outside is static.
Basically the premise is - that outside runs are going longer for average, so we need to run more outside. That's using stats to dictate a strategy instead of building a strategy around a defensive scheme.
I'm sure most backs have a better average running wide, Why? Because the further you get to the edge, the fewer defenders you encounter.
It's really no different than saying a team has more 20+ yard plays that average, so they need to keep throwing the ball deep to be optimal.
That's not the way stats work.
Hence why I asked in one of my first posts if these trends were static or if they've been running more (or less) to the outside as the season has progressed.
I disagree that you can't use these stats build your strategy, or more accurately to tweak your strategy. If you're successful at something, anything, you should use it more. It's not that difficult.
And your deep pass analogy isn't apples to apples since the turnover rate and sack rate likely change on deep throws, whereas the fumble rate is likely constant whether you run inside or outside. Not a perfect measure since a lot changed, but I think everyone would agree we threw (and completed) more deep passes with Gilbride at OC then McAdoo. By your logic, that should lead to a higher average, but if you look at adjusted net yards/attempt (adjusts yards/attempt to account for sacks/ints/TDs), Eli's numbers are slightly better under McAdoo even including last year with Beckham injured and a shit OL.
When was the last time the Giants had a RB that actually run well to the edges and beat the defenders? Only guy I saw do it a few times was David Wilson.
is so large and this article barely scrapes the surface of providing any evidence to back it.
Eli is clearly most effective in play-action. Drawing teams in to the LOS through play-action is best done with a credible threat of a run inside the tackles.
Is it wrong to run it often? What about if it's successful? 4.6 YPC is pretty darn good for inside runs. As pointed to in the article, it's better than Gurley (4.3) or Gordon (3.5). If he's better at inside runs than those guys, why wouldn't they continue to feature those runs?
Also, a season-long statistic like his inside/outside split fails to account for changes made mid-season. It would be a much more interesting article if he showed whether that's a split that has continued, grown, or shrunk as the season has gone on. I'd be much more likely to accept the claim if he showed a correlation between the split and the MUCH more productive offense later this season.
Looks like he was going over some charts, noticed some anomalies, and decided to write an article about it.
They are still learning how to use him most productively. Â
the thing that stands out the most, is the amount of green (runs of 5+ yards) on the charts for the other 3 guys relative to Barkley. Considering Barkley has a higher ypc than any of those 3, but a lower % of runs for 5+ yards, tells me those RBs benefit from strong OLs more than Barkley.
I'd also guess Barkley's charts for the last 4 weeks have a higher % of green than those from the first 9 games.
RE: Would the Giants be better than 5-8 right now.... Â
worse, definitely. Maybe a better long term outlook? We don't know yet. Barkley was a super solid pick, the correct pick. We could not afford to miss at 2, we did not.
He's actually become seemingly more productive the more we've been running him between the tackles.
It's hard to use him "incorrectly" - he just needs the ball.
We should be running him more to the outside?? On pitches or stretch handoffs??
How does one determine that, and do they know if the defense is schemed to be better prepared for that type of a run??
Classic article where someone has a theory and then needs to fit the facts to the theory.
Classic article where someone has a theory and then needs to fit the facts to the theory.
Seriously. Without Barkley's spectacular season and running, it could easily be argued they'd be 1-12 or 2-11. Rediculous to even hint a great running game doesn't matter.
I'd also be curious to see the same carry charts from the article broken down pre/post Brown's addition. Barkley average a good 4.68 yards/carry the first 8 games, but has upped that to a ridiculous 6.17 yards/carry since the bye. Are they running more efficiently to the inside? Is the distribution the same?
His point is that they run him inside 55% of the time (and outside 45%), but the optimum distribution would be to flip those like they do with Gurley, Kamara, Gordon.
My biggest question is, have they made adjustments throughout the season, most notably with the addition of Brown to the lineup? Because Barkley's #s since the by are even more ridiculous than his overall season averages.
That's not remotely what this article says.
He's on pace to have the greatest season ever by a rookie runningback in the history of the NFL, and the Giants are using him wrong.
Then he goes onto throw up a bunch of charts from other successful backs and offenses and criticizes the Giants for running Barkley too much up the middle. It's pretty simple to me, if Barkley were playing on those other teams, with the offensive lines of the other teams, then maybe he'd run off tackle more than he has. We've had Chad Wheeler and Flowers as RT for the year. The guy loses credibility with his "analysis" at the end, that was terrible.
It is an interesting analysis. But there are so many variables to each situation that it's unfair to assume each situation is static; therefore, Barkley would have better results.
You'd need to dig further to truly compare - down and distance, type of defense for each run, personnel packages, main play call or audible, etc, etc.
Obviously the Giants didn’t have the chance to choose a player who would be a top QB this season. But if one of Darnold/Allen/Rosen becomes that guy in the future their teams will be much better off.
Also I guess it’s not really RB that is the outlier there, it’s the QB just having such a huge impact. I think you can have a HOF talent having a career year at any other position and still have a bad football team.
There is no "optimum" run distribution that can be applied across all backs. There's likely an optimum distribution for each specific team, but I wouldn't expect any of those dumbasses to understand what that distribution is.
What works for Gurley is independent from what works for Barkley and other backs.
They made some changes, the line is starting to gel, and since the bye they have looked a lot better.
It really is as simple as that.
Obviously the Giants didn’t have the chance to choose a player who would be a top QB this season. But if one of Darnold/Allen/Rosen becomes that guy in the future their teams will be much better off.
Also I guess it’s not really RB that is the outlier there, it’s the QB just having such a huge impact. I think you can have a HOF talent having a career year at any other position and still have a bad football team.
The Packers are like 5-7-1. The Saints have missed the playoffs multiple times.
Obviously the Giants didn’t have the chance to choose a player who would be a top QB this season. But if one of Darnold/Allen/Rosen becomes that guy in the future their teams will be much better off.
Also I guess it’s not really RB that is the outlier there, it’s the QB just having such a huge impact. I think you can have a HOF talent having a career year at any other position and still have a bad football team.
Like the 5-7-1 Rodgers? Or the 6-7 Newton?
Both more than likely will miss the playoffs. Rodgers is going to miss as well.
There is no "optimum" run distribution that can be applied across all backs. There's likely an optimum distribution for each specific team, but I wouldn't expect any of those dumbasses to understand what that distribution is.
What works for Gurley is independent from what works for Barkley and other backs.
Except Barkley's numbers do point to him being better on outside runs:
119 carries and 4.6 yards/carry between the guards
88 carries and 6.3 yards/carry outside
Sure those numbers might even out if we ran outside more, but that begs the old question...why not run it until they stop it?
As I mentioned earlier, this macro analysis also doesn't show if there are any changes throughout the season. Are they still running inside on 55+% of the plays? Have they adapted at all, particularly since the addition of Brown? Are these numbers still valid since the addition of Brown or are they now averaging more up the middle since they don't have a gaping hole at RG?
Honestly, if they had fully committed to Barkley(referencing Eagles second half when they took their foot off the gas), they'd be 5-0 post bye and in much better shape to threaten for a playoff spot. Barkley is impacting the Giants chances of winning football games, that is undeniable.
It's about creating a tick of hesitation in the defense, misdirection, keeping them on their heels, etc. PS has to get a feel for where to point the rush attack as a game develops.
'Incorrectly' is probably bad word choice. 'Non-optimally' would be more accurate assuming that the numbers aren't really skewed by the early season C-RG issues.
It's about creating a tick of hesitation in the defense, misdirection, keeping them on their heels, etc. PS has to get a feel for where to point the rush attack as a game develops.
This is right. They coached him to run more north south and his numbers and production shot up big time.
Quote:
is what opened up his game, vision, and shook him loose.
It's about creating a tick of hesitation in the defense, misdirection, keeping them on their heels, etc. PS has to get a feel for where to point the rush attack as a game develops.
This is right. They coached him to run more north south and his numbers and production shot up big time.
He also didn't have defenders flying through untouched.
I also wonder how they chart certain plays. Lets say a run is designed to go outside, but there's an unblocked LB/S on the edge. If Barkley cuts that play up the middle (between the guards) and just drives forward for 2-3 yards (a positive play under the circumstances), do they chart that as "between the guards" or as an "outside run"? You get 10-20 runs like that (~1.5 per game) and it could significantly skew the results.
On his 25 runs for losses, 16 vs. 9 have been outside the tackles, including his longest losses of 7, 6 and 5 yards.
Quote:
In comment 14218440 JonC said:
Quote:
is what opened up his game, vision, and shook him loose.
It's about creating a tick of hesitation in the defense, misdirection, keeping them on their heels, etc. PS has to get a feel for where to point the rush attack as a game develops.
This is right. They coached him to run more north south and his numbers and production shot up big time.
He also didn't have defenders flying through untouched.
I also wonder how they chart certain plays. Lets say a run is designed to go outside, but there's an unblocked LB/S on the edge. If Barkley cuts that play up the middle (between the guards) and just drives forward for 2-3 yards (a positive play under the circumstances), do they chart that as "between the guards" or as an "outside run"? You get 10-20 runs like that (~1.5 per game) and it could significantly skew the results.
I think this exactly right. The amount of penetration the defense was getting early in the season was just unacceptable. He was getting re-routed almost immediately after getting the ball in most of the early games. There was another article where the charted the amount of negative or zero yardage run plays pre and post bye I think it was. The percentage was far to high to begin with(I think over 30%), and that number was cut in half post bye. Limiting the defensive penetration has been key as well.
On his 25 runs for losses, 16 vs. 9 have been outside the tackles, including his longest losses of 7, 6 and 5 yards.
Well, assuming the numbers are correct, how is saying his usage is suboptimal misleading? His yards/carry is higher on outside runs, therefore if you increase the percentage of outside runs, you'd improve the efficiency of the offense (at least up to a point). You might get a few more negative runs, but those should be baked into the averages which means you're also getting a lot more long runs.
I'd wager their chances of scoring are substantially higher on drives that include a long run (20+) than they hurt by a single negative run.
Doesn't even look like a "hurdle". No doubt the one last week was out of joy, but pointing to this one as a "celebratory hurdle" and evidence that he's having more fun than in college is off, imo.
Basically the premise is - that outside runs are going longer for average, so we need to run more outside. That's using stats to dictate a strategy instead of building a strategy around a defensive scheme.
I'm sure most backs have a better average running wide, Why? Because the further you get to the edge, the fewer defenders you encounter.
It's really no different than saying a team has more 20+ yard plays that average, so they need to keep throwing the ball deep to be optimal.
That's not the way stats work.
The best part of the article:
Above are two of Barkley’s 50-plus-yard rushing touchdowns this fall, clips that should offer a pretty strong indication that the Giants made a smart pick by taking him second overall in the 2018 draft. After all, 50-plus-yard rushing touchdowns are rare. No NFL player has notched more than two in a season since Adrian Peterson in 2012, when the then-Vikings star eclipsed 2,000 yards rushing and was named league MVP. There have been only 18 50-plus-yard rushing touchdowns during the entire 2018 season.
Barkley has four of them, along with a 57-yard receiving score. Entering Week 15, he has 1,753 yards from scrimmage (second in the league) with 13 total touchdowns (fourth). He’s the NFL’s most explosive player.
Doesn't even look like a "hurdle". No doubt the one last week was out of joy, but pointing to this one as a "celebratory hurdle" and evidence that he's having more fun than in college is off, imo.
Agree, pretty sure there's some college clips where he does the "hurdle" too.
Basically the premise is - that outside runs are going longer for average, so we need to run more outside. That's using stats to dictate a strategy instead of building a strategy around a defensive scheme.
I'm sure most backs have a better average running wide, Why? Because the further you get to the edge, the fewer defenders you encounter.
It's really no different than saying a team has more 20+ yard plays that average, so they need to keep throwing the ball deep to be optimal.
That's not the way stats work.
Hence why I asked in one of my first posts if these trends were static or if they've been running more (or less) to the outside as the season has progressed.
I disagree that you can't use these stats build your strategy, or more accurately to tweak your strategy. If you're successful at something, anything, you should use it more. It's not that difficult.
And your deep pass analogy isn't apples to apples since the turnover rate and sack rate likely change on deep throws, whereas the fumble rate is likely constant whether you run inside or outside. Not a perfect measure since a lot changed, but I think everyone would agree we threw (and completed) more deep passes with Gilbride at OC then McAdoo. By your logic, that should lead to a higher average, but if you look at adjusted net yards/attempt (adjusts yards/attempt to account for sacks/ints/TDs), Eli's numbers are slightly better under McAdoo even including last year with Beckham injured and a shit OL.
Eli is clearly most effective in play-action. Drawing teams in to the LOS through play-action is best done with a credible threat of a run inside the tackles.
Is it wrong to run it often? What about if it's successful? 4.6 YPC is pretty darn good for inside runs. As pointed to in the article, it's better than Gurley (4.3) or Gordon (3.5). If he's better at inside runs than those guys, why wouldn't they continue to feature those runs?
Also, a season-long statistic like his inside/outside split fails to account for changes made mid-season. It would be a much more interesting article if he showed whether that's a split that has continued, grown, or shrunk as the season has gone on. I'd be much more likely to accept the claim if he showed a correlation between the split and the MUCH more productive offense later this season.
Looks like he was going over some charts, noticed some anomalies, and decided to write an article about it.
This is another excellent point, imo.
I'd also guess Barkley's charts for the last 4 weeks have a higher % of green than those from the first 9 games.