Print

2013 Offensive Identities

You are viewing free content provided by FantasyGuru.com. Why not consider subscribing today?

by Mike Horn, Statistical Analyst

Published, 7/3/14 

It’s still wise to understand a team’s identity” – John Hansen, “2005’s Lessons Learned”
 
Every year in preparation for the season, I take a statistical look at the offensive identities of last year’s teams, to see what they tell me about the coming year. In particular, I look at the offenses coaches ran in their previous jobs to try to get some insight into what they’ll change when they take over a new team, and what players will benefit or suffer from the change.
 
Below is a chart with an overall summary of each team’s run-pass mix, how often it gave its primary runner the ball, what positions get its pass targets, and how often the RB1 and WR1 are targeted. Simply put, this tells us what the offenses looked like last year. Over the next several articles, I’ll provide more in-depth analysis of each team, especially on the teams that changed head coaches or offensive coordinators to see how that change might impact fantasy production. But in this article, I want to just look at last year and maybe add some understanding to the concepts behind this idea of “identity.”
 
Of course, there’s no guarantee what a team will do this year. Injuries, new draft picks or free agents, departed players, changes to a team’s defense, etc. will change what a coach does. Game situation may dictate significant changes, as well (see: the 2012 and 2013 Washington Redskins). This article is just one more source of information to help you understand what might happen this year.
 
So, here’s the data, with the league average for each category included at the bottom and explanations of each column below:

2013 OFFENSES AT A GLANCE
Rush
Total
Total
Rush %
Total
Targets
Target %
Team
Wins
%
Plays
Rushes
RB1
Passes
RB
WR
TE
RB1
WR1
RB
WR
TE
RB1
WR1
ARI
10
41%
1037
422
56%
615
100
348
99
21
134
18%
64%
18%
21%
39%
ATL
4
31%
1024
321
51%
703
161
342
135
49
128
25%
54%
21%
30%
37%
BAL
8
39%
1090
423
56%
667
121
355
129
73
135
20%
59%
21%
60%
38%
BUF
6
49%
1116
546
45%
570
122
287
97
64
100
24%
57%
19%
52%
35%
CAR
12
48%
999
483
56%
516
78
265
111
35
106
17%
58%
24%
45%
40%
CHI
8
40%
1013
404
82%
609
108
355
98
94
160
19%
63%
17%
87%
45%
CIN
11
44%
1097
481
55%
616
79
361
134
8
177
14%
63%
23%
10%
49%
CLE
4
32%
1078
348
46%
730
144
377
141
11
158
22%
57%
21%
8%
42%
DAL
8
35%
957
336
70%
621
88
348
140
66
157
15%
60%
24%
75%
45%
DEN
13
40%
1156
461
57%
695
117
416
135
74
141
18%
62%
20%
63%
34%
DET
7
40%
1102
445
56%
657
156
358
104
79
155
25%
58%
17%
51%
43%
GB
8.5
43%
1074
459
71%
615
81
360
109
44
126
15%
65%
20%
54%
35%
HOU
2
38%
1089
414
46%
675
118
343
156
49
179
19%
56%
25%
42%
52%
IND
11
40%
1023
409
47%
614
112
352
110
41
138
20%
61%
19%
37%
39%
JAC
4
37%
1020
378
70%
642
113
361
94
59
120
20%
64%
17%
52%
33%
KC
11
43%
1029
442
74%
587
234
212
78
104
101
45%
40%
15%
44%
48%
MIA
8
35%
1001
349
59%
652
64
381
123
35
136
11%
67%
22%
55%
36%
MIN
5.5
42%
1013
423
78%
590
89
325
109
40
105
17%
62%
21%
45%
32%
NE
12
41%
1138
470
41%
668
119
401
89
12
149
20%
66%
15%
10%
37%
NO
11
36%
1079
391
42%
688
204
257
181
84
111
32%
40%
28%
41%
43%
NYG
7
39%
988
381
39%
607
96
355
101
29
122
17%
64%
18%
30%
34%
NYJ
8
48%
1020
493
46%
527
85
290
99
7
72
18%
61%
21%
8%
25%
OAK
4
44%
1000
437
50%
563
138
280
77
47
97
28%
57%
16%
34%
35%
PHI
10
47%
1054
500
79%
554
82
296
112
64
125
17%
60%
23%
78%
42%
PIT
8
39%
1023
394
68%
629
109
367
96
66
165
19%
64%
17%
61%
45%
SD
9
46%
1060
486
64%
574
128
252
147
31
104
24%
48%
28%
24%
41%
SEA
13
52%
973
509
75%
464
67
251
88
44
98
17%
62%
22%
66%
39%
SF
12
53%
961
505
69%
456
72
229
100
26
128
18%
57%
25%
36%
56%
STL
7
44%
968
426
67%
542
78
271
147
35
83
16%
55%
30%
45%
31%
TB
4
43%
981
420
36%
561
92
298
84
15
156
19%
63%
18%
16%
52%
TEN
7
45%
1032
462
71%
570
72
342
100
51
138
14%
67%
19%
71%
40%
WAS
3
41%
1107
453
78%
654
63
401
134
12
181
11%
67%
22%
19%
45%
AVG
8
42%
1041
433
59%
607
109
326
114
46
131
20%
59%
21%
42%
40%

Key:
 
·       Wins – how many games the team won in 2013.
·       Rush % - the percentage of total plays devoted to running the ball.
·       Total plays – the sum of rushing and passing plays. Note: the Total Passes column includes sacks as well as pass attempts.
·       Rush % RB1 RB1 is defined as the RB on the team who got the largest number of carries. The Rush % RB1 is the percentage of the team’s total RB rushes claimed by its RB1.
·       Targets – passes sent to each position, collectively for the RBs, WRs, TEs, then for the RB1 and the WR1. WR1 is defined as the team’s WR who got the most targets. Targets for RB, WR, and TE will not sum to the total passes, because “total passes” includes balls thrown away, spiked, and targeted to the other positions, like eligible tackles.
·       Target % - the percentage of the total targets thrown to each position group. The figures for RB1 or WR1 are their share of the targets to their position group, not of the overall total. Target % for the three position groups may not sum to 100% due to rounding error.
 
The next table is the same information except expressed as a rank, with a Top-5 finish highlighted in greenand a Bottom-5 finish in pink.

2013 OFFENSES AT A GLANCE
 
Rush
Total
Total
Rush
%
Total
Targets
Target %
Team
%
Plays
Rushes
RB1
Passes
RB
WR
TE
RB1
WR1
RB
WR
TE
RB1
WR1
ARI
18
14
20
17
15
17
15
22
26
16
17
8
24
26
19
ATL
32
17
32
22
2
3
18
7
13
17
5
29
15
23
21
BAL
23
7
18
20
7
9
12
11
6
15
9
20
13
8
20
BUF
3
3
1
28
23
8
24
25
9
28
7
25
21
11
25
CAR
4
26
7
19
30
26
27
14
20
24
22
21
6
15
16
CHI
21
22
24
1
18
16
11
24
2
5
14
10
26
1
8
CIN
10
6
8
21
14
25
7
9
31
3
30
11
8
29
4
CLE
31
10
30
27
1
5
5
5
30
6
8
24
14
32
13
DAL
29
32
31
9
13
21
15
6
7
7
27
18
7
3
7
DEN
22
1
11
16
3
12
1
7
5
11
20
13
18
6
28
DET
19
5
14
18
8
4
10
18
4
9
4
22
27
13
10
GB
14
11
12
8
15
24
9
16
16
19
28
5
19
10
24
HOU
26
8
22
26
5
11
17
2
13
2
15
27
4
18
3
IND
20
18
23
24
17
14
14
15
18
12
12
16
22
20
17
JAC
27
20
28
10
11
13
7
27
11
22
10
9
29
12
29
KC
12
16
15
6
21
1
32
31
1
27
1
31
31
17
5
MIA
30
24
29
15
10
31
4
12
20
14
31
1
12
9
23
MIN
15
22
18
4
20
20
20
16
19
25
23
14
17
14
30
NE
16
2
9
30
6
10
3
28
28
10
11
4
32
30
22
NO
28
9
26
29
4
2
28
1
3
23
2
32
2
19
11
NYG
24
27
27
31
19
18
12
19
24
21
21
6
23
24
27
NYJ
5
20
5
25
29
22
23
22
32
32
19
17
16
31
32
OAK
11
25
16
23
25
6
25
32
15
30
3
26
30
22
26
PHI
6
13
4
2
27
23
22
13
9
20
24
19
9
2
12
PIT
25
18
25
12
12
15
6
26
7
4
16
7
28
7
9
SD
7
12
6
14
22
7
29
3
23
26
6
30
3
25
14
SEA
2
29
2
5
31
30
30
29
16
29
25
15
11
5
18
SF
1
31
3
11
32
28
31
20
25
17
18
23
5
21
1
STL
9
30
17
13
28
26
26
3
20
31
26
28
1
15
31
TB
13
28
21
32
26
19
21
30
27
8
13
12
25
28
2
TEN
8
15
10
7
23
28
19
20
12
12
29
3
20
4
15
WAS
17
4
13
3
9
32
2
9
28
1
32
2
10
27
6

Some observations and questions I have from looking over the charts:
 
·       Arizona, Baltimore, and Indianapolis were the most average-looking offenses, with no Top or Bottom-5 finishes.
 
·       Despite injuries to key receivers, the Falcons were very pass-happy, running on both the lowest percentage and total number of plays. They particularly emphasized throwing to their RBs… but not their RB1, who only saw a middling amount of targets and target share (%). I’ll talk more about how that might change in a later article. Of course, a large part of the “lack of running” was because of the whole “lack off winning” thing.
 
·       Did you know the Bills had one of the quickest-tempo offenses in the league? They ranked 3rd in total number of plays, and 1st in number of rushing plays, which is a bit unusual – usually, high numbers of passes equate to more plays. Their RB1 had a very low share of the carries, and their WR1 had a low percentage of targets.
 
·       Carolina just missed being in the Top 5 in TE target share, but because the Panthers were near the bottom in total passes, that only translated to a middle-of-the-road volume of targets. This was a run-heavy offense, although some of that was QB-driven.
 
·       Matt Forte’s value was summed up by having both the highest RB1 rush percentage and target share. This Chicago offense feeds its stars: the Bears were the only team in the Top 5 in both RB1 and WR1 targets.
 
·       For the second year in a row, the Bengals were 30th in the share of targets that went to RBs, even with the addition of Gio Bernard. Because Bernard was not the “RB1” in this table, the actual RB1, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, was near the bottom in RB1 targets and share. Meanwhile, A.J. Green was near the top in both categories for WR1s.
 
·       Cleveland’s RB issues led to a lack of running the ball (losing was a factor there too, like with Atlanta) and also in passing to its RB1. The Browns led the league in passes (counting sacks) and were 5th in all three target categories.
 
·       The Cowboys were near the bottom of the league in running the ball (both % and total attempts); they also were dead last in the number of plays.
 
·       Denver led the league in total plays and was 3rd in total passes. Not surprisingly, they also led the league in WR targets.
 
·       The Lions were again in the Top 5 in total plays although they threw a little less than in 2012. They did not throw nearly as much to Calvin Johnson as might be expected, but did use RBs a lot in the passing game.
 
·       The Packers passing offense was WR-focused and RB-averse.
 
·       Houston was #2 in TE targets but with low catch rates (and injuries) for their TEs, they didn’t make a lot of fantasy noise at the position. Andre Johnson got a heavy workload as WR1.
 
·       The Jaguars didn’t run much (28th) and were 29th in target share for TEs and WR1s. I’d say they lacked focus, whether due to lack of talent or poor design.
 
·       It’s probably not a surprise that the Andy Reid-coached Chiefs led the league in RB and RB1 targets; some of this is due to Dexter McCluster counting as an RB vs. a WR in my database, and Jamaal Charles led the club in receiving. Either way, they were last in TE targets.
 
·       Miami didn’t run the ball much (29th) and didn’t throw to RBs much (31st), so that meant not much RB fantasy production. Meanwhile, a large number the pass targets went to WRs (4th in volume, 1st in share).
 
·       Adrian Peterson was "only" 4th among RB1s in the share of RB rushes on his team. At WR, the Vikings didn’t focus on getting the ball to their WR1 (30th in target share).
 
·       New England was #2 in total plays last year, down from #1 the year prior. The RB committee there is captured in the RB1 shares, 30th in rush percentage and 30th in target percentage. “Issues” at TE meant the passes went to WRs, although not necessarily to a well-defined WR1.
 
·       The Saints still threw a lot to their RBs (#2 in the league), but in 2013 more of those targets went to their RB1 Pierre Thomas (3rd-most) than in the past. Of course, Thomas had a low rush share (29th). And of course, they led the league in TE targets.
 
·       The Giants didn’t run much (27th) and didn’t have many plays period (27th). And they were 2nd-lowest in RB1 share. Not a great atmosphere for fantasy success out of the backfield (and obviously why they made major changes this off-season).
 
·       The Jets were back to ground-and-pound, ranking 5th in rush percentage and total rushes. Clearly they had no WR1 to speak of (last in target total and share) and didn’t use their RB1 in the passing game (last or next-to-last).
 
·       Oakland was another team that didn’t focus on a WR1; TEs didn’t get much action here either.
 
·       For all the talk of the high-paced Eagle offense, it was only 13th in total plays. Some of that was due to all the running – 4th in total rushes. The RB workload was heavily focused on the RB1 LeSean McCoy, who was 2nd in both rush and target share. Everything else was spread around.
 
·       The Steelers didn’t run much (25th), but they did throw to their WR1 Antonio Brown a lot.
 
·       San Diego was a TE-centric offense at the expense of the WRs.
 
·       Last year I wrote, “If you knew Seattle was 29th in total plays and 1st in the percentage share of rushing plays vs. passing, you'd know they were 32nd in passing plays.” The offense changed some in 2013: 29th in total plays, 2nd in rushing percentage and 31st in total passes. Consequently, the Seahawks were near the bottom in targets to all position groups.
 
·       I also wrote, “The 49er offense, while different from Seattle in specifics, was like it in general terms: near the bottom in total plays, near the top in percentage of rushing plays, and near the bottom in total passing plays”. No change for them. I also wrote “The big difference is that San Francisco's WR1 was 4th in target share among WR1s – although only 18th in total targets.” Make that #1 and #17 (Anquan Boldin in 2013). I guess both Seattle and San Fran were in the “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” mode.
 
·       The Rams fit right in with their NFC West brethren in total plays, 30th, right between the Seahawks and 49ers. They also were near the bottom in total passes. They did go from near the bottom in TE targets to near the top, but largely split them over two TEs, killing the fantasy value of both. The WRs, particularly the WR1s, suffered as a result (or, the receivers didn’t get targets because they were terrible. Whatever your narrative).
 
·       Tampa went from near the top in in percentage of carries and targets for its RB1 to near the bottom (thanks, Doug Martin injury). Vincent Jackson again ranked 8th among WR1s in targets.
 
·       Tennessee didn’t throw much to RBs (28th in targets, 29th in share) but did focus what few targets there were on its RB1, Chris Johnson (5th in RB1 target percentage). It was a WR-centered set of targets (3rd in target share), but the lack of of volume (23rd in total passes) kept the total volume of WR targets down.
 
·       The Redskins were an up-tempo team – 4th in total plays, often playing from behind in the second half. Their RBs ran – 3rd in RB1 rush percentage – but did not catch – last in RB targets and share. That seems to pretty accurately describe the fantasy value of Alfred Morris. Consequently, the Redskins were 2nd in WR targets and #1 in WR1 targets (Pierre Garcon).
 
Subsequent articles will focus more on the changes to offenses for 2014, at least due to coaching changes, and on what to expect in the coming year.

 

4,136 people are totally into the Guru.

Back to the top