Playbook Confidential: Chargers vs Chiefs
The Chargers offense ran 68 plays against the Chiefs over nine drives, totaling 28 runs versus 40 called passing plays (41% run / 59% pass). The offense log I kept is available for your own rummaging (with the other two games filtered out, but available if you download it). Out of those nine possessions, only five (drives 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8) were subjectively successful at moving the ball, with the opening drive being debatable for that distinction. Drive 5 was an two minute drill affair before halftime that scored a figgie. Drive 7 was rather un-Norv like; with a couple of passes to start, a big "11" personnel run, and two empty backfield shotgun sets out of "21" personnel (more on that later).
| Drive | Run | Pass | Total | Yards | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 35 | Interception |
| 2 | 6 | 9 | 15 | 72 | Touchdown |
| 3 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 24 | Punt |
| 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Interception |
| 5 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 73 | Field Goal |
| 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 9 | Punt |
| 7 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 80 | Touchdown |
| 8 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 53 | Punt |
| 9 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 35 | Turnover on Downs |
You may be surprised by the fact that Norv was more deliberate with the run this week than usual (see minimal running against Vikings on 2nd and 3rd down). The Chargers ran the ball 59% of the time on first down, 33% of the time on 2nd down, and a non-zero 14% of third downs. To be fair, the two third down runs were a fullback dive with 1 yard to go, and a conservative eject on third and long. 17 of 19 first downs came as a result of passing plays.
| Down | Run | Pass | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 17 | 12 | 29 |
| 2nd | 8 | 16 | 24 |
| 3rd | 2 | 12 | 14 |
| 4th | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 28 | 40 | 68 |
My favorite subject to obsess over, the use of Ryan Mathews and Mike Tolbert; took a giant left turn this week. For one week, Tolbert lost the title of shotgun, third down, and goal line back, but was retained as the two minute drill choice. Mathews retained his tendency to be paired with Jacob Hester while picking up all the jobs that Tolbert yielded. The majority of running plays were also given to Mathews, who had 21 carries to Tolbert's 4. We certainly know that Mathews rose to the opportunity, what we don't know, is that if that workload opportunity was simply based on preserving a dinged up Tolbert.
| w/ Fullback | Shotgun | Third Down | Goal to Go | Two Minute Drill | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mathews | 11 | 19 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 48 |
| Tolbert | 5 | 12 | 6 | 0 | 8 | 20 |
| Total | 16 | 31 | 14 | 4 | 8 | 68 |
Rushes to the left side had the best YPC, with the bulk of the running work going predictably into the middle. The redeeming grace for Clary and Vasquez is that one of Mathews touchdowns came behind them (the second, sprint to the cone TD).
| Direction | Rushes | Average |
|---|---|---|
| Left | 7 | 5.4 |
| Middle | 16 | 4.3 |
| Right | 5 | 3.2 |
Turning to the personnel subject, we saw the continuation of the trend to slowly fold in interesting new tid bits as the season progresses. There was increased use of Greene in a three TE "13" set, and the 2011 debut of the "10" group, also known as four wide receivers. It would be hubris to even make the joke that Norv must read BFTB, but he really did embrace throwing the ball out of "11" this week. Other than passing all over the place with "11", "12" and "21" carried the bulk of the load, with pretty neutral run/pass tendencies.
| Personnel | Run | Pass | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 11 | 4 | 24 | 28 |
| 12 | 8 | 7 | 15 |
| 13 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| 21 | 9 | 8 | 17 |
| 22 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 27 | 40 | 67 |
Comparing Personnel and Down shows... uhm. I have no idea what this shows other than the kind of variation you'd hope to wind up with if you scripted it. Cue JKvandal with the brilliant insights!
| Personnel | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 21 | 22 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 0 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 2 |
| 2nd | 0 | 11 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 0 |
| 3rd | 1 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 4th | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Here's the formation on the lone appearance of the "10" group. The WRs were Vincent Jackson, Malcom Floyd, Patrick Crayton, and Richard Goodman. This play resulted in an eleven yard completion to Crayton for a first down.

There was also this interesting formation that is basically five wide with "21" personnel; using Mathews and Hester split out wide to the right side with McMichael, VJ, and Crayton to the left. This one went to VJ underneath for a first down. Check out the near side corner respecting Mathews' speed, and Mathews telegraphing his route, which was to simply turn towards the QB and be available for a dump off.

We'll wrap up with a quick summary of those three TE sets using Greene. The "13" personnel was used 4 times. It was unsuccessful in twice gaining only 2 yards on 1st and 10. It was successful the other two times, in both cases setting up a nice and manageable third and short. The clip shows the best result for the group. As with our Mathews/Tolbert balance, time will tell if this was simply a result of only two TEs being available in the absence of gates, or a full feature of the offense.
27 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks for the drive chart
It gives new insight…
Dielman on Rivers: "I've tried to get him to say s--- or f--- and all he'll ever do is say, 'Golly gee, I can't do that."
by Superduperboltman on Sep 27, 2011 9:52 AM PDT reply actions
If Gates is inactive
We should have four wideouts on the field nearly a 3rd of the time. No reason really not to considering the alternatives are Hester and stone hand McMike. Neither are bad but a 4th wideout would be an upgrade in shotgun sets if the routes are trimmed accordingly.
PS great post
Winning
So here’s the thing, as JKvandal pointed out, defensive coordinators make their personnel call based on the offense personnel, not the formation. They see Hester and Mathews out there and dime/nickel doesn’t get called. In the “21” five wide picture I included, the result of the play was an underneath route to Jackson where he was covered by a #50 which I assume to be a linebacker. Without Hester and Mathews in that huddle, Jackson is covered by a DB.
This isn’t to say I’m not hoping for more “10” and a continued feature of “11”, just saying I think that personnel is deliberate. Offensive versatility with similar personnel groups is something we harped on last year, but never quite realized on the field.
Also, stone hands McMike? slightly harsh!
bingo!
Defensive coordinators are forced to make a defensive playcall BEFORE the offense has lined up in their formation, so the only thing the DC has to base his playcall off of is the personnel that the offense has on the field.
This is where mismatches are created, and where versatility of players can be so deadly. When the Chargers send Hester onto the field, it doesn’t tip Norv’s hand so to speak since he is so versatile. The Bolts line up in so many different formations out of 21 personnel that it is pretty much unpredictable at this point as to what sort of play is coming, which is a nightmare for a DC.
As Orz pointed out, the 5-wide look out of 21 personnel Sunday was the first time we had seen that this season, and I guarantee you that opposing DC’s are going to pull their hair out over that film when scouting the Chargers. The DC now has to make a choice when he sees 21 personnel of sending in a 3rd CB or risk having Jackson lined up against a linebacker…conversely if he sends in a 3rd CB, the Bolts will be happy to run against that defense all day.
by jkvandal on Sep 27, 2011 12:19 PM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Yep I fully realize this
And great reponse Orz and jk, but lemme respond. Firstly I like McMike, the stone hands blast was unwarranted. I do not care if a team plays nickel/dime against our 4 wideout sets more than they would if Hester or McMike is on the field. And we do get some nickel/dime looks even with a fullback or TE on the field, just based on down and distance I would guess. The thing is without Gates you really lose the flexibly of putting him anywhere. With Gates and Hester/McMike your options are enormous, take Gates out of the equation and screw trying to hide that you are spreading the field. Just go four wide and let Rivers do his thing. Of course I am talking about obvious throwing downs like 3rd and 5 for example
Winning
I can't argue that the team is better with a healthy Gates on the field
but it’s hard to even tell what percentage Gates is operating at right now…he is clearly not himself.
So with Gates out of the picture, I guess the next question becomes, who do you trust more as a receiver: McMichael or Walters/Goodman? Sure McMichael may not be as fast or explosive as those guys, but he has 395 career receptions…which is 391 receptions more than Walters and Goodman combined.
I would argue that the team trusts McMichael, Hester, Tolbert, and Mathews more as receivers than Walters and Goodman…I could be wrong, but when it comes to experience, those 4 are much more experienced receiving the ball than the 4th and 5th string WR’s on this roster.
Problem is, he doesn't have 395 receptions WITH Rivers, like Gates do
It takes a while to adapt, we just have to be patient, he obviously done it before.
by Lightning Hobo on Sep 28, 2011 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed
this is about match ups. the defense will always try to match your personnel.
This is why i’d like Norv to use the same personnel groupings in different formations.
The peanut gallery has spoken!!!
This could also evolve into the most complicated no huddle ever.
Also, since the 21 and 12 are balanced, if the other team sends a 3rd CB, should we audible to just run over him?
Since 21 and 12 are 50% of our playcalling, I don’t think they can worry too much about these gadget plays(were it trinket plays? Feels like 3 years since I last heard the term).
If DC make choices based on personel, what does he do if they bring an extra OG (and 2 TE)? Is it rather common to use one as a TE? Norv said he really liked the 3 TE formation last year (it was supposed to be the new 12/21, the patriots on steroids, the new Gillet version of their offense), unfortunatly the 3rd TE had even stonier hands than Mc (was it Sperry?)
Can Hester play TE? Is there a point in trying to do it?
by Lightning Hobo on Sep 27, 2011 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you're thinking of kris wilson
by Orz on Sep 27, 2011 7:15 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Rec!
excellent work Orz. you should do this for a living
Really liked the new additions!
But you should add a subjective analysis by the end, your thoughs on personal use, play calling and offense in general. Bitches love subjective analysis.
by Lightning Hobo on Sep 27, 2011 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed, it needs a touch more analysis to go with the mountain of dataz
On the other hand, I’m really hoping we can get discussion in the comments based on people making their own conclusions and findings… much like your longer post above and Jeff’s comment below. Comments like that get me geeked to churn out the logging!
There's another one coming
I’m working on it now, should be published either this afternoon or tomorrow morning.
Popping my theory balloon...
Looking at the spreadsheet, I was surprised that of the 9 times the Chargers used the 11 formation on 1st down, Rivers went 1/6 for 11 yards and 2 near turnovers. I do like the 2 carries for 10 yards by Mathews – I’m sure we will see some play action from this soon. Also interesting that Norv used this a ton in the 2nd quarter, 2 minute drill notwithstanding, but hardly at all in the 1st or 3rd quarter when we might be looking to push the tempo.
Great work on the spreadsheet, by the way.
"Egad!" Wile E. Coyote.
by Jeff (sliderockmpc) on Sep 27, 2011 5:59 PM PDT via iPhone app reply actions
Oh and using Green as an eligible
Is something I had not even noticed. That bears keeping an eye on. Thats why I come to this sight, for nice nuggets like that. I mean where else can you find that shit? No where I know of
Winning
by Foilhat on Sep 27, 2011 7:21 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
i cant tell where he's lined up
but i do think he is covered which means you are correct, he would have been not been eligible.
Winning
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/sep/27/game-musical-qbs-has-ended-mcmichael/
Actually, 17’s playing through some discomfort, still feeling the effects of an illegal helmet to the sternum in New England.
There’s the reason I suspected he was horribly underthrowing the ball that ended up picked off
Winning
Love the analysis
The one thing that is missing is the outcomes. Would love, and humbly request, maybe YPA for each. Add two more columns:
12 formation, 8 runs, 7 passes, X.X Yards/Run, Y.Y Yards/Pass
May have to adjus/notatet for big plays (e.g. 80 yard bomb that drives up the average) but it would give a view of the efficacy of running or passing out of each formation.
to be total geeked out
the yards/run or yards/pass for each formation divided by the league average. Sweet!

by 

































