The Ringer NFL Show - The Present and Future of NFL Analytics With Josh Hermsmeyer | The Ringer NFL Show

Episode Date: June 21, 2019

The Ringer’s Robert Mays and Kevin Clark discuss the news of the NFL making pass interference reviewable (02:00) and the drama surrounding Nick Caserio (07:00). Then FiveThirtyEight’s Josh Hermsmeyer joins the show to discuss the influx of analytics around the league (12:00), what it reveals about the quarterback landscape (24:00), and how it will affect the future of the NFL (31:30). Hosts: Robert Mays and Kevin Clark Guest: Josh Hermsmeyer Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey, it's Liz Kelly and welcome to the Ringer Podcast Network. The NBA finals are in the books and our staff is here to guide you through the NBA draft and free agency with daily podcasts and articles on the ringer.com. Also, be sure to check out Kevin O'Connor, Danny Chow, and John Gonzalez on Thursday, June 20th, for our live NBA draft show on Twitter for instant reactions on every pick. And as always, be sure to listen to the Ringer NBA show for all of your offseason coverage. You can listen on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. It's at the Ringer NFL show.

I'm Robert Bays, joined as always by Kevin. Kevin, how you doing, buddy? I'm doing okay. We're gearing up. It's about that time, Robert. Yeah, it's the, we're getting to the end of June. The NFL is officially on its summer vacation. I heard Gary Kubiak say that last week at Vikings minicamp,

and it literally felt like we were all going to sleepaway camp. So that's the part of the NFL calendar we're in. But things are still happening. So we're going to continue our big picture shows today with Josh Hermzmeyer from 538. Before we get to Josh, let's knock out a couple quick news things. This morning, the NFL announced that it will allow replay for past interference this season. So like with all other penalties, coaches can throw a challenge on replay call or pass interference calls or no calls up until the two minute warning. And then in the final two minutes, the on-site replay official will be responsible for stopping the play as he is with all other plays.

So this is happening. We are getting reviewable interference because of what has. happened in the NFC championship game this year. What are your initial thoughts? So there's a couple of things to unpack here. Number one is I was reading my photo this morning and he was talking about Al Riveron, who's the head of officiating, cited the Chiefs Chargers Week 15 game as something that might be overturned. And that's interesting to me because the reason that this whole thing happened is because of the egregious nature of the Saints and the Rams game. I was at that game. And I don't want to say that the Chargers chief's call was borderline. It wasn't. But more borderline calls

being reviewed in past interference, I think is a slippery slope. I think the entire reason for this rule is to prevent another Saints Ram situation from happening. And I think that all of these things, if it's, you know, one one call a week gets overturned or whatever, I'm okay with that because I never want to see a Saints ram situation ever again. That was so egregious. Again, the energy that was sucked out of the game because of that was just unbelievable. Every play after that no call was, I sat there in disbelief in the Superdome the entire time. Everything, I was shaken and I couldn't believe that that Paul that existed after that no call. That can't happen again.

So I'm okay with this. Again, there's a slippery slope, but it doesn't matter because we can't have another one of those calls ever again. I agree. And I just hope that the officials kind of err on the side of caution when it comes to overturning the players. I hope they need the evidence to be so explicit and so obvious that they're like, okay, this makes sense. I don't want to see them overturning close borderline judgment calls. I think that if it's even slightly in the gray area, I think you go with the original call. And I hope that they have told the officials that because even if there are kind of hard and fast rules with this and there is black and white and there are lines.

to be drawn. You know, the officiating committee and just the officials in general, they tell guys how to call stuff. They tell guys where to lean when it comes to these sorts of things. You know, I know on the, there was that first year where you could kind of review plays that had been whistled dead on a turnover. They pretty much said, let this stuff go now so we can have a chance to get it right. And that's not necessarily how you would do it if there was a line in the sand. But with this, I hope they do something similar. It's like, okay, even if by the letter of the law, that's past interference, err on the side of,

eh, the call on the field was this, let's stay with the call on the field. I hope that's what they're, I hope that's how they're teaching them this, because that's the way I'd like to see it done. So here's what I find interesting about this. What happens if you're one of these physical defenses, the Seattle Seahawks were won a couple of years ago.

You know, Tom Brady has sort of openly, not mocked, but he has openly talked about how the dolphins in the mid-2000s or Sam Madison's, those types of teams, basically made a career out of the gray area. of is it pass interference or is it not pass interference. And those teams like to establish a baseline

and they like to maybe push the envelope really early and then get into physical defense as the game goes and get more and more and more physical and basically dare the ref to throw the flag. What happens now if those sort of borderline calls or teams that basically live on the edge of pass interference and Seahawks certainly were that in the sort of Richard Sherman Brandon Browner days,

what happens now if a coach just decides to start throwing the flag at those teams? teams. I'm really interested to see whether that type of physical defense can exist going forward, especially in the past game. We've seen, you know, the passing boom has made it so you really do have to play a more aggressive style of defense. And we're so much more man. I mean, it's everywhere now. And, you know, the defensive blueprint, what is really is, you know, Peyton Manning versus the Patriots 15 years ago, the tie law game. And you wonder how that's going to change if whenever there's a borderline call, it can be looked at.

You know, we still only get two challenges, though. No, but after two minutes, after two minutes, three player official can look at anything. Well, I know, but you're saying these teams that are trying to establish it early and all of this stuff. I mean, I think that for the most part, it's not going to affect how teams go about it because, again, if you're doing it early in the half, if things like that, then you only get two challenges. You don't want to throw away a time out on the first series of the game. Let me play devil's advocate here. if you can get an entire defense off balance by getting them a pass interference call early,

do you do it? Sure. But that's another way to consider strategy. I don't mind that. I think that it's not going to ruin how teams play. And if it does, if that does kind of make you take a step back on the first series and a coach of the other team is willing to take that risk,

good for him. I think that's a calculated challenge, which I don't mind. I think that adds a layer of just complexity to the game that I'm fine with. So I'm okay with this. I think that we'll see if it's a disaster. Maybe it will be. But I think that for right now, if they really do err on the side of,

this has to be so obvious that we can't not overturn it, then I'm okay with this rule existing for exactly the reason you said, just that we can't have that NFC championship game again. All right. Before we get to Josh, let's talk about the Dexons briefly. We talked about this on the last show. It was kind of the back and forth with Nick Casario. Obviously, I think the stuff that's come out as of late,

it's clear that Nick Casario does want to leave. the Patriots don't seem keen on letting him do that. Oh, I don't know about that one. I mean, he has a clause in his contract. Yes. That he can't interview with other teams. I think he wants to leave. Okay.

That is what I've come to understand about the situation. Yeah. And the Patriots are not making easy. So Benvolent in the Boston Globe wrote this. And there was a lot of controversy in the Patriots beat about whether he was correct. And that's, it seems to be a real. there's a lot of talk now whether or not that clause that he can't negotiate with other teams is even allowed.

It's allowed or yeah, it's by league rules. By league rules, right. I think that, you know, it was interesting to me. I've talked to coaches, there's coaches who've told me in the past that they have their assistance. So most assistant coaches are on one-year contracts. And I know that there are some head coaches

who say, okay, I'll give you a two- or three-year deal, but you just can't leave. And that would make sense in the scouting community as well where you get more job security but you're not allowed to jump. And so I sort of understand why that clause is put in place

but I think that when you understand the nature of Nick Casario, Meg's always going to be a GM candidate and pretty much can have a job whenever he wants. You wonder why he would take that sort of deal. Yeah, exactly. He's a guy that's been there for almost 20 years

and he's been a very high high-ranking member of their front office for 15 years. You would assume that he would have, I think his lawyer screwed this up. For him to have that in his contract is a really bad idea. Well, no, unless he got a couple million dollars for it. No, that's fine. I mean, if he was compensated, but that feels like something he wouldn't want in there based on the trajectory he has.

It's surprising that that existed. So let's talk about this from the text inside of it very briefly. This is a horrible idea. To not have a GM? Yes. I'm with you on that one. It's, they seem like, oh, we'll just kind of tag team this, whatever. As a team that is on the brink of contention and that fancies itself a contender,

you need a general manager because we live in a world where teams, less than ever, I think, are done building by the time the draft is over and by the time free agency ends. You have teams left and right that make deals midseason that eventually come back to help them. The smartest teams are always trying to find ways. to tinker with their roster. And the fact that the Texans don't have someone in charge that can swing a trade on October 28th for a guy on the last year of his deal

that has soured on the team that he currently plays for, that's a huge team-building concern, especially when you have their aspirations. And maybe they're waiting for Casario for next spring. Maybe that's their idea is that, well, if his contract is up after the 2019 season, we'll just go in and get him then. That's fine.

DeShon Watson is in the third year of his, rookie contract, he has one more cheap season after this. So you're playing on borrow time here, guys. I just think that waiting an entire year and not giving yourself a chance to get better between now and when the playoffs may start is a huge miscalculation. I have one more comment, and that's going to sum this all up. The Houston Texans have made the New York Jets look like geniuses. Yes.

I mean, it's unbelievable that the Texas has made the Texas Jets look smart. I will say, I love this. One of my favorite things that's happened in the last week or so is all these Jets hires with their front office. They got the Hogan guy from Indianapolis. Rex Hogan. And I knew his first name. I just forgot. All the people, they're just like, oh, they're just crushing this.

Like, look at this front office they're building. All these people that have no idea who Rex Hogan was three days ago. Right. It's one of my favorite things. Yeah. I always love it's like they're building a dream team. They're building a dream team. God, we have Rex Hogan now.

obviously we knew who Joe Douglas was, but most people did not know who Joe Douglas was like six months ago. And now it's like, wow, I can't believe they got Douglas. It's really great. What they've done, considering what they had as far as what they were facing after, whenever, whatever day, you know, four weeks ago, they fired McCagnant. From that forward, they did the best they could. The problem is they let McCagnan have a full draft and have full free agency. And they, you know, because of that, this offseason is a net law.

You could have done all of this stuff in January. But from the circumstances they were in a month ago, the Jets have done as well as they can do. I completely agree. I'm with you. I think that they deserve a lot of credit for how well they've been able to do this midstream. But for all the people who think they knew who Chad Alexander was before like two days ago, I just really liked the reaction. Somebody told, a rapper poor, or tweeted that he was a respected scout.

So now people think that somehow the Jets have the best front office in the business. Super Scouts. It's great. All right. Let's get to Josh. And we are so pleased now to welcome Josh Hemsmeyer from 538, who does some of the best football analytics work on the internet. And Josh, thank you so much for being here. Oh, man, I'm thrilled to be with you guys.

Definitely through my favorite followers and your podcast. Can't miss. So just, yeah, thrilled to be on. Awesome. Thanks, buddy. Josh and I have, we have many points of connection. We had dinner at the combine, but I think the two things that we really kind of vibe the most with is we are, We are in the, there is no such thing as too much play action club.

You and me, I think, are founding members of that. So we definitely, at our core, we're very similar people. And I think that we have an affinity for different kinds of beverages. I think that's also another thing that we've connected on overtime. As long as there's alcohol in it, yeah, I'll drink it. But I agree with you. But I think actually, Mays, you're the guy who actually wrote the seminal piece on play action, comparing it to the three-point shot.

And it's the one I always linked to, and it's certainly the one that got me thinking about it. So, yeah, but definitely play action as much as you can. Josh, you know, I think the analytics moment is here. It probably has been building for three or four years in the NFL, and now you see all the teams that have gone out of their way to hire someone. I'm pretty sure all 32 teams at least have sell investment analytics, and some teams have entire analytics departments. We've seen that.

The Eagles won the Super Bowl with the robust and great analytics department. When you think of 2019, you think of all of the teams, probably a majority now, have coaches who are at least listening to it a little bit. where do you think that's going to show up on the field? Is that just an explosion in people going forward on fourth down? Is that a certain type of play calling? We're not thinking about where does analytics in 2019 show up and we're watching on Sunday? No, I think it's a great question.

And I think, you know, the answer is that there are a bunch of teams now with analytics people, but are they really integrating it into their decision-making process? And how long will that take? And I think, you know, like the Panthers, they just hired a new guy from Philadelphia. And, you know, I'm sure he'll be in there giving advice from day one, but will it actually be, you know, utilize will they actually put it into practice? I think that takes time. You need to build trust.

You need to show the people in the operation side and in the football side that you're not trying to, you know, be territorial, that you're a team player, that you want to help them, not take something away from them. And so I think that process needs to work itself out for these teams that are just now embracing evidence-based analysis. But I do think that there are a handful of teams, probably four or five, that have been doing it at a high level for a really long time. And we'll continue to do it at a high level and or maybe even turning up the volume. I think definitely the Baltimore Ravens are a shining example of that. But on a hiring spree, I think they have three or four new guys coming in this year. And that's super exciting.

So I do think you will see some teams really kind of leveraging. the benefits of that kind of analysis, but I don't think you'll see a fee change in the NFL in 2019. So those teams like Carolina, you know, we mentioned the Chargers, just got somebody for the first time. I think kind of the baby steps of this analytics movement is going forward on fourth down, Mario,

that's something the smart teams were doing years ago. So if that's kind of the rudimentary side of this, what is the super advanced side, teams like the Ravens, the Eagles, you know, when they're kind of, you know, 100-meter Olympic runners right now compared to the teams just standing up for the first time, How are they going to maybe implement that in 2019 in a way that we haven't seen before?

Well, I think the next level is that you do third down differently, right? If you know you're going forward on fourth, you know, a lot, lot more, right? You know, as much as the analytics, for instance, said, then third down becomes a much different down. You know, it becomes a down where, you know, there's not so much lack of, there's not such a lack of deception. you're not necessarily having to pass out of that down, and therefore we might see a greater efficiency out of runs on third down. I know that the analytics pair that out. And so one of the things I would suggest is that, you know,

on third down in general, running is usually the best thing to do because you're so often in a third and longer situation. But if you know if you're going to go for it on fourth down, maybe you take advantage of that rushing efficiency on third down, you know, give the ball a nice power player or maybe, you know, outside zone, if you can pick up four yards, three yards, whatever it might be. And then knowing you're going to go forward on fourth down, you can get those extra two yards, two yards, whatever it might be.

And I think that that's probably the next level. I know that, you know, folks like Philadelphia Eagles have been doing stuff like that for a while. And so I guess that would be the next step with it. It's not just saying, oh, crap, we didn't make it on third. Should we go forward on fourth? You know going in, you're going forward on fourth. So you change how you approach third down. And the reason that's attractive to me

is that if you start running on third down, then play action becomes viable on third down, which is all I'm ever after in the world. So, before we keep going with Josh, let's take a quick break. Want to improve your golf game this season with more than 350 classes on every part of the game. Golf Digest Schools features the game's leading teachers

from Butch Harmon to David Ledbetter to Hank Haney. It's like having the best minds in golf at your disposal wherever you are on your phone, laptop, or TV screen. With Golf Digest Schools, you can send videos of your swing to be analyzed by a Golf Digest ranked teacher or follow their fitness programs to help you get in your best golf shape. From power to putting, from Breaking 100 to Breaking Par, no video program gives you more opportunities to take your golf game to the next level,

just as if you were working with a pro. To sign up for Golf Digest schools and get a one-year subscription to Golf Digest magazine, go to golfdigest.com slash all-access and use promo code NFL to get 30% off an annual subscription. That's Golf Digest.com slash all access and use promo code, NFL for 30% off today. Josh, when we think about sort of the, and I ask this question to every GM I can find who's at least a little bit analytically inclined and every analytics person certainly. And I wanted to pick your brain about it because obviously you're one of the smartest handling minds, either inside or outside of a team. When you look at sort of the holy grail right now and baseball had on base percentage and, you know, effective field goal percentage or true shooting percentage, whatever it is in.

basketball. We know there's a handful of things that really dictate it. Do you think there's an efficiency stat possible for offenses, for defenses, whatever? Is there a stat that you've just found and you've said, man, this tells the story of football game way better than any stat before it? No, not yet, but I think the holy grail is, and I'm working on it. I don't know if it'll work. But the idea is to get inside the head of a quarterback and try and understand their decision. making process. If you can,

if you can somehow measure it in a way that's even remotely reliable and you can project it forward out of college, that a guy can think quickly, that he can process information at a high level, then all the rest of this stuff, like is his arm good enough, right?

Is he mobile enough? And then all the other measurable just kind of fall away in terms of important. You can get that one number right. And then, you know, obviously we all know, if you get your quarterback right, then, you know,

you've got a lot. of the problem already solved. And I think that's just the hardest thing. And I think it's the reason why, you know, these world-class talent evaluators have just had so much trouble with the position, even with high-round first-round pick, is because it's so hard to get into the head of a quarterback and truly understand if they're able to process information at a high level,

deliver a ball on time and on target, learn a new language, basically, when they come to the NFL. And I didn't, and I, I think there's ways around that as well. I mean, Cliff Kingsbury's coming in, and he has a simplified offense, both for his wide receivers and his quarterback. And I think that that needs to happen as well. I think we need to meet the athletes where they live, you know,

bringing them in and then throwing the West Coast offense, all the verbiage right at them. I think that's just crazy. I don't understand that either. But at the same time, being able to better measure that kind of what people have often called immeasurable thing, what goes on between the years. I think that's the holy grail. And I think there might be some ways through it.

So what kind of barriers have you run into? What hurdles have you had to kind of jump over? If you can't get there yet, if no one can get there yet, what specific challenges do you think exist right now to getting there? It was this shocking lack of kind of thickiness of defense or statistics or any way we try to measure defense. And I think if we could somehow get a better read, I mean, even PFF with their grades, right?

So each play, they grade the play. And this is, you know, subjective as well as quantitative. I mean, they look at the results of play, obviously. But they're also saying, you know, did he flip his hips on time? You know, did he close? You know, all the things you would expect to go into a grade like that. And we still find that elite cornerbacks don't really stay elite, bad quarterback suddenly become above average year after year.

It's this weird thing where we just can't predict that kind of defensive performance. And from my perspective, it's troubling, obviously, because defense is important. I flippantly say that defense doesn't matter. But, you know, from a quantitative perspective, it's just this thing that's kind of nebulous. We can't really put our hands around it. And so that's something I've been fighting through. And I think the folks at PSF have done a pretty good job, kind of, you know, making first steps towards analyzing that and saying, well, actually, if you can create.

And I think what it comes down to, and I'm sorry, long-winded, but I think what it comes down to is for many plays, quarterbacks are actually told to just let the average outcome occur. They keep to play in front of you. Like, if it's a seven-yard game, that's fun. And so because I've done so much, it's really hard to kind of separate guys and say, well, was he good or was he bad?

Was he doing his job within the scheme? Yeah, he was. But it was still a seven-yard gain. I mean, what do we call that? And so I think that that's a big part of the problem. I think with defense is this reactive beast rather than a proactive beast. And so I think that's probably the toughest thing that kind of get wrapped your head around because everyone knows defense is important.

Everyone knows defense has a huge impact on the outcome of games. We really just can't wrap our heads around it in quantitative terms yet. So I know I laughed at that defenses don't matter joke, but for people that don't understand, can you walk them through just the air yards model that you use very quickly? because I know that it's become something that people rely on, people love, but I don't know if everyone knows about it necessarily. Yeah, so I build a model to project the wide receiver performance week to week during the NFL season.

And one of the things I do not include in the model is the defense that the team is playing, at least. And I do the same thing for quarterbacks. And so people just say they can't get behind. They go, how can you do that? How can you just pretend like defense doesn't matter in your modeling? And it just turns out it doesn't help you predict the outcome of a game very well. At 538, we were just updating our ELO and we're adding in a quarterback factor,

which it didn't have for the entirety of its existence so far. So now we're actually layering in this idea of what the quarterback's performance is then. And we added in, like, defense and stuff like that. And it moved in, you know, like almost nothing. And I have talked to folks like Kate Matthew. As a Bears fan, that's great. Thank you. And I've talked to folks like Kate Matthew and Rufus Peabody, and they basically find the good thing.

It's just a small aspect of being able to predict what's going to happen in the future. Now, game planning is completely different, right? When you have control over the pieces on the game field, that's a completely different thing. Now, Josh, you've done the Air Yards stuff you've done. And even just airyards.com, just playing around with that is just incredibly fun. You get to see sort of the decline of Eli Manning in real time. But, you know, having done all of this work and figuring out sort of what matters with the quarterback position, can you give us a quarterback that we don't talk enough about who your metrics say is actually quite good?

I think Matt Ryan is probably underappreciated. You know, obviously he made it with the Super Bowl. and Julio Jones, what is it about that team? They have this trouble in the red zone, right? Is it scheme? Is it personal? I don't know. Last year, they couldn't get it done on the ground in the red area.

And years previous, it was always a Julio Jones problem. People were saying, you know, when you went to get near the pylon, he was allergic. And I think that, you know, I mean, obviously in football, being efficient, being good in the red area is supremely important. and a lot of what coaches do spend a lot of time in those situational scheming for those situations, whether it's on third down or in the red zone.

And for whatever reason, I guess since Kyle Shanahan left, they just had a really tough time with it. But I think that team should have won a lot more games last year, and I think Matt Ryan is maybe a tick below elite, but definitely underappreciated and a guy the metrics certainly like. What about the exact opposite?

Someone who your number say maybe, Maybe they're not throwing, you know, they throw shorter passes than we think, and really the success or the credit that they get belongs to a play caller or the offense. Is there a guy you think is overrated by the metrics? The last three years, surprisingly, Aaron Rogers. And it's not to say that he's not elite. He's obviously a supremely talented quarterback, one of the best of his generation. And, you know, terrific to watch. But at the same time, these past three years, he just hasn't been the guy that we had come to.

become accustomed to. His performance just hasn't been up to snuff. And whether that is McCarthy's team, whether that's him going off script so much, my understanding is someone was tracking it and they found that over the past two or three years, he changed the play over a third of a time.

I mean, that has to have an impact. And if that impact has been negative, then maybe it's the case that what's going on with the Flur is a good thing trying to rein in it. And they say they want him to do more play action and he's fighting back then. I don't like turning my back to the to the defense.

I don't understand. I've never been, I've never done such a thing against the NFL defense. It sounds terrifying. But at the same time, you and I both are on the same page. It seems like that would be something

that would really help him. He did it well earlier in his career. He just moved away from it. So I don't know if this is like, you know, people have made this comparison between Farvin and our Rogers as they got late into their careers. They became a little more diva-esque.

And maybe, maybe he just needs to, you know, kind of bite the bullet and really play within the system again and not trying to be the ear all the time. And maybe that will just help him be more efficient and his natural skill will show a little better. I think one of the things when it comes to that turning the back to the defense, I don't know if it's necessarily the, he takes his eyes off the pass rush, so you feel a little bit more vulnerable. Because every number we have and every piece of evidence we have shows that play action

slows pass rushes down. Even if you're holding the ball longer, it makes the pass rushes. less dangerous. What I think his apprehension stems from is that in that system, for every quarterback that's done it with every coordinator, there's such a rigidity to what they ask you to do because by turning the back to the defense, you have to rely on the timing of your footwork. You have to trust where players are going to be based on the route distribution against certain coverages because you're not looking at them. It puts restraints on a quarterback's ability to create on his own. And you're kind of at the whims of the players.

caller and the play designer. That's why I think he doesn't want to do it because he's saying, I'm going to do what you tell me to do, and that's okay with me. That's some quarterbacks that enjoy that structure. I know some do. They're the ones that really kind of thrive in there. Yeah, the Kirk cousins of the world. That's exactly right.

The work on there. Yeah. So Kirk likes it. I mean, he actually enjoys the feeling of kind of knowing where things are going to be. Some quarterbacks do not. So, Josh, I wanted to ask you, this is something just in the analytics world in general, I feel like when numbers are the most powerful is when they can really challenge your own conventional wisdom, your own kind of personally held biases.

An example recently for me was the coverage versus pass rush debate. You know, I fetishize offensive and defensive line play and how important it is to have that Kaleel Mack-esque player. And we've seen a lot of numbers come out recently to kind of challenge that idea. The coverage is actually more important. So in your just findings over the years, when you kind of dove into these different kind of things, what has really challenged your personally held beliefs about football? What did you really have to power through and kind of eventually accept that was initially difficult? Yeah, I think certainly that defensive portion that we talked about earlier, you know, dealing with the fact that, you know, the running the ball is lauded so much such a huge part of the game. and yet we find that it really doesn't move the needle in terms of outcomes

and win probability and that kind of thing. But really kind of interesting to me is a more recent finding that I worked through. And that was, I realized that situational running is still very important to the NFL. And so I wanted to understand what works around the goal line. I thought now that we have some of this new data, we were able to go through it and kind of look at what's the best way to run, say, three yards and in. what type of run blocking scheme actually works the best and is the most effective.

And it turned out, which was sort of intuitive but also sort of counterintuitive, was that this whole power kind of concept works better. You actually take a guy off a line, move him, and have an overwhelming force of a point of attack on the other side of line, leave a guy on block. That's actually more effective than a ZBS, zone blocker, an outside or inside zone type of scheme

where you just slide along the line and try and find a hole or a cutback brain. And the weird thing about it or the interesting part about it was two to one, the NFL runs DBS at the goal line rather than full power. And then if you talk to people who scheme and you thought of things,

they'll tell you, you can't leave a man on block. It's going to blow up your play. It's stupid. And yet the numbers bear out that it's way more effective and yet it's done a lower percentage of the time. about like I say around 33% of the time versus 56% in the problem with that zone. So that was really interesting and working through that why that might be is fascinating for me because I know you both are big online play, especially online play.

And I would love to hear your thoughts on that, why you think that might be. I just think it's about misdirection. I think it's about understanding that those plays are so quick hitting. I'm just thinking about how often the Eagles, the Bears, the Chiefs run those WAM plays at like the four yard line where the tight end comes across and they seem to work every single time. So that's not surprising to me. I think that makes a lot of sense because you know, you're really playing with a linebacker's eyes and that in those moments where you need two or three yards, that single second of just kind of paralysis. That makes total sense to me. That's

interesting. I've never heard or read that before, but just on its face, I can believe that's true. Okay, Josh, looking down the road five to ten years, I think it's fascinating because when I think of someone like Halli Roseman or even before that Mike Tannenbaum, what those guys did was corner the market on the salary cap. That's sometimes you just get in on the ground floor in the NFL because you understand the newest thing and then you rise up the ranks. That's going to happen with the folks who are getting in now on analytics. And in five, 10 years, those people will be GMs. Once that happens, how do you think the sport will look fundamentally different in a decade? Will that be the total devaluation of running backs? Will we treat quarter?

backs differently, where will that manifest itself in a decade? That's a great question. And I think football will be closer to baseball in 10 years, but I still don't think they will be on an even feel. It's certainly not in the front office. I still think football and the owners will gravitate towards former players, people who spend time on the field, either at a high level in college or in the pros.

But I do think that, you know, folks like Rosen, there will be more opportunities. And it's interesting because you had Dylan Rose do a piece or an interview in New York or kind of talking about the sensitivity around this. And I think it's important for the folks who are coming up in NFL analytics right now to be sensitive to that and to understand that that's also the case. And that, you know, while especially on Twitter and all the rest, and again, people are discovered and hired on Twitter all the time. I am not knocking.

I think it's a great way to kind of showcase what you can do. but there also needs to be a sense to be in understanding that, you know, coming off, like, you're smarter than everyone, especially people who've played the game when you're being serious and you're having serious conversation. It does analytics and no favors, and it will impede the progress up the food chain and up the GM ladder if you were to take that kind of attitude into a team environment. All that said, I'm really bullish. I'm super excited for what's happening.

I think that smart people are saying the right things inside teams. they're hiring the right people and yeah, I think you'll see a continued devaluation of running back. It's just, it's just too clear. I think you'll see more passing.

I think we should probably see 70, 75% passing on early downs. I think we need to push that in the NFL. And because there is deception in those first two downs, you can fool the defense with play action. You can fool them with a jet action. You can do all sorts of things

and keep them guessing and still do the more efficient thing, which is passing, and not leave yourself with long down and distances on the later down. So between that and the fourth down stuff, I really think by five, ten years from now, we'll see a lot about happening. I've got one more for you, Josh. And you talk about just kind of the way that you have to approach it when you're talking to coaches, when you're talking to decision makers.

With the people and the teams that you've talked to, what is kind of the firmly held belief in the analytics world that teams are most? kind of cautious about accepting. I mean, outside of the running game, which I think is definitely the one that comes up the most, is there another thing that most of us just accept as fact, and if you brought it to an NFL head coach or the coaches that you've talked to,

they're still a little bit apprehensive about it. I certainly say what you mentioned regarding past rush versus the coverage. And the idea has always been that you take the head off the quarterback and you'll win. And it's certainly the case that, If you rush the quarterback and stock him, this is a largely negative drive-ending result. And that's great.

I'm actually on the fence here. Like I talked to Eric and Eric Eager at PFF and George Taha-Hourri. And they're great, smart people, but I'm still kind of on the fence. And so I kind of, I'm sympathetic to the NFL guys when they say, no, we need to invest in the pass rush. And the reason why I'm sympathetic is because it's a lot more predictable. You draft a guy.

You draft a guy who is an elite athlete He can come off the edge, bend the edge. You know what you're getting, and he's going to do that in the NFL in all likelihood. Whereas if you draft a cornerback, it's just a lot more nebulous. You need to surround him with at least average pieces at the other positions,

the nickel, the other cornerback, and then you need to have confidence safety. And so that's a unit you need to build, whereas you can just grab a piece, like a Cahillian, stick him in there, and he's going to make it in there. fact. And so I'm kind of sympathetic to it, but I do think that's a battle that I don't know that it, I mean, I'm certain that there's no clear answer yet. And it's certainly no clear answer

among NFL decision makers. Well, that's the fascinating part of all of this, right, is even if you come to that conclusion, it's the applicability of that conclusion. How does this influence team building? How can it make sure that our decisions are correct? And when those two things don't necessarily even mesh together and become possible, then how relevant is the data? And I I think that's kind of where these conversations always end up going, and that's always why they're worth having. And I'm very glad we had this one. So we're out of time.

I could go much, much longer with this. But Josh, thank you so much. Yeah, absolutely. We probably will. Josh, thank you so much for doing this. Enjoy your trip. Enjoy the coming NFL off season. And hopefully we'll talk to you soon.

Thanks, Samuel. Guys, that's all we got. We will be back next week with our latest in the series of our big picture show. As always, guys, thank you so much for listening to the Rangel NFL show on the Ringer Podcast Network.