Quarterback sneak
- Thread starter tuckercat
- Start date
Sneaks really only work if the defense isn't loading up on the center. The last half of last year, to me it started to look like teams were indeed doing this, and were successful stopping it. So, Iowa has moved away from it.
Who knows, maybe it's a Daniels thing where his best blocking isn't something like a sneak entails, too. Seems to have gone away from it ever since he took over full time.
I noticed against OSU, they did the same thing and stopped it, and held a couple LB's ready to plug up going over the top (but almost to me looked like they were too far away to really hinder it) - and considering I can't remember Iowa ever going over the top on a sneak, I don't believe Iowa believes in that style. Must have had a fumble or two doing it in the past.
Aside from a couple option runs right up the middle by Stanley, it looks to me like Iowa has decided to move away from having the QB run in any fashion this year. Stanley seems to be not really looking for the scramble at all, at least not like CJ used to.
My hunch is they saw what happened to CJ the last couple years and decided it ain't worth getting the QB beaten up.
Who knows, maybe it's a Daniels thing where his best blocking isn't something like a sneak entails, too. Seems to have gone away from it ever since he took over full time.
I noticed against OSU, they did the same thing and stopped it, and held a couple LB's ready to plug up going over the top (but almost to me looked like they were too far away to really hinder it) - and considering I can't remember Iowa ever going over the top on a sneak, I don't believe Iowa believes in that style. Must have had a fumble or two doing it in the past.
Aside from a couple option runs right up the middle by Stanley, it looks to me like Iowa has decided to move away from having the QB run in any fashion this year. Stanley seems to be not really looking for the scramble at all, at least not like CJ used to.
My hunch is they saw what happened to CJ the last couple years and decided it ain't worth getting the QB beaten up.
Some data to ponder from "Advanced Football Analytics": I think it would also be interesting to include where the QB is lined up, under center or shotgun, oh well.
"The table below lists the success rates for 3rd and 4th down runs with 1 yard to go. It breaks out plays by QBs, RBs, and FBs. QB scrambles on pass plays have been removed. Kneel downs and spikes are also removed. Plays inside the 10 yd line are removed due to field compression effects.
Conversion success rates on 1-yd to go runs (%)
Position 3rd Down 4th Down (all column headers are the same; from the left, position, 3rd down, and 4th down)
FB 77 70
QB 87 82
RB 68 66
Total 72 72
The next table lists the frequency of each type of play by down and position.
Frequency of play type on 1-yd to go runs (%)
Position 3rd Down 4th Down
FB 10 8
QB 16 31
RB 74 60
At first glance, it appears QB sneaks are underused and RB dives are overused. It's also notable that the QB sneak is used significantly more often on 4th down than on 3rd down. I suspect this is from the selection bias--4th down attempts are more common on shorter "1 yard" to-go distances because teams would tend to kick more on the longer to-go situations. 3rd down doesn't suffer the same biases, except perhaps that teams might choose to pass on "longer yards" and run on inches to go. Consequently, we can't draw any definitive conclusions about the relative effectiveness of the tactics.
Or can we?
Data from 2-yd to-go distances can help clarify the issue. The one thing we know about 2-yds to go is that it's always longer than 1-yd to go. I realize how simplistic that sounds, but it's an important point. Note below that QB sneaks on 2-yds to go are just as successful as RB dives on 1-yd to go!
Conversion Success Rates on 2-yd to go runs (%)
Position 3rd Down 4th Down
FB 60 50
QB 80 62
RB 58 56
Total 60 57
Actually, 2-yd QB sneaks are far more successful than 1-yd RB dives on 3rd down and slightly less successful than 1-yd RB dives on 4th down. Taken overall, this suggests that the QB sneak is an underused tactic as far out as 2 yds to go. It also explains why running on short yardage is more successful than passing--it's the QB sneaks that make the difference.
Note that there is still bias in the data. Teams with strong lines or quick, strong QBs will tend to trust the sneak, and they're also the teams that would be most successful doing so. But the bias runs both ways. Teams with powerful RBs would call their number more often and be more successful doing it. I think we can infer from this data that, whatever coaches believe about the general potential for success of the two tactics, they underestimate the QB sneak and rely too much on the RB dive".
"The table below lists the success rates for 3rd and 4th down runs with 1 yard to go. It breaks out plays by QBs, RBs, and FBs. QB scrambles on pass plays have been removed. Kneel downs and spikes are also removed. Plays inside the 10 yd line are removed due to field compression effects.
Conversion success rates on 1-yd to go runs (%)
Position 3rd Down 4th Down (all column headers are the same; from the left, position, 3rd down, and 4th down)
FB 77 70
QB 87 82
RB 68 66
Total 72 72
The next table lists the frequency of each type of play by down and position.
Frequency of play type on 1-yd to go runs (%)
Position 3rd Down 4th Down
FB 10 8
QB 16 31
RB 74 60
At first glance, it appears QB sneaks are underused and RB dives are overused. It's also notable that the QB sneak is used significantly more often on 4th down than on 3rd down. I suspect this is from the selection bias--4th down attempts are more common on shorter "1 yard" to-go distances because teams would tend to kick more on the longer to-go situations. 3rd down doesn't suffer the same biases, except perhaps that teams might choose to pass on "longer yards" and run on inches to go. Consequently, we can't draw any definitive conclusions about the relative effectiveness of the tactics.
Or can we?
Data from 2-yd to-go distances can help clarify the issue. The one thing we know about 2-yds to go is that it's always longer than 1-yd to go. I realize how simplistic that sounds, but it's an important point. Note below that QB sneaks on 2-yds to go are just as successful as RB dives on 1-yd to go!
Conversion Success Rates on 2-yd to go runs (%)
Position 3rd Down 4th Down
FB 60 50
QB 80 62
RB 58 56
Total 60 57
Actually, 2-yd QB sneaks are far more successful than 1-yd RB dives on 3rd down and slightly less successful than 1-yd RB dives on 4th down. Taken overall, this suggests that the QB sneak is an underused tactic as far out as 2 yds to go. It also explains why running on short yardage is more successful than passing--it's the QB sneaks that make the difference.
Note that there is still bias in the data. Teams with strong lines or quick, strong QBs will tend to trust the sneak, and they're also the teams that would be most successful doing so. But the bias runs both ways. Teams with powerful RBs would call their number more often and be more successful doing it. I think we can infer from this data that, whatever coaches believe about the general potential for success of the two tactics, they underestimate the QB sneak and rely too much on the RB dive".
If you watch other quarterbacks, there is a trick to it where the good ones wait a half-second to give the line a chance to get a push and to see where a opening might be. Brady is a master at this.
Going right away can backfire because the linebackers are leaping at the same time.
Going right away can backfire because the linebackers are leaping at the same time.
