Rich Rodriguez, Quarterback Archetypes, and Success

Thanks.  I wonder about the effect of the intervening variable (i.e. both the good years and the running years were Pat White years, who was both a runner and good at football). Still, though, a stronger correlation than I would have expected.

Double Post.

For example, in 2005, Pat White rushed for 952 yds, and the total team rushing is 3269 yds. If I'm interpreting those numbers correctly, that means that White's rushing yardage was just over 29% of the total WVU rushing yardage. What does the 53.5% refer to?

I agree that your conclusions are true historically, but if the mental and leadership aspects are similar (between Denard and Tate), I don't see a reason why a healthy and less fumble-prone Forcier would not breed just as much success for a Rodriguez offense. Imagine the first few games  of 2009 with a competent defense? I think Rich would take that every time.

Personally, I like Denard as an individual and as a story, but if Tate learned to not wave the ball around, played with a healthy shoulder and David Molk were healthy- that seems like a recipe for a very potent offense.  I don't think that sort of QB was ever a choice for Rodriguez when he was at WVU.

I like the stats and the work that you have compiled. Good work.

I would greatly welcome the idea of rushing all day, and only passing when you have to. This philosophy really tests the will of our opposition. The 3 yard gains up the middle in the 1st quarter turn into 8 yard gains in the 4th.  As long as ball security is less of an issue in regards to running the read option, this also will create less turnovers for our defense to deal with. Running gets your O-line in a nasty mind-set, and creates a rhythm for all the offense to follow. Please run the ball a ton this year...

for this season, anyway.  I would not be surprised at all if DG is the starter for the 2011 season, barring a breakout season for either Denard or Forcier.

Your charts simply show that the spread-option under Rodriguez has primarily been a run-based offense. When that offense is effective, the team will have a lead and continue to run the option. However, if the option component is not working, then the team is likely to be behind and start passing more (i.e., using the spread component)

This is common sense, but it is still interesting. It shows, I think, that while Rich's best teams were highly successful running, they were also able to pass when necessary. 2005 is an anomaly since White didn't start until the third game and, much like Denard last year (in a far, far more limited role), he wasn't ready to run the spread component effectively -- thus the high option (i.e., run) numbers for both team and quarterback. 2006 and 2007 are more indicative of what the spread-option looks like when it is at its best.

The "two-headed monster" at Michigan just adds another layer of complexity to the basic scheme -- Tate is somewhat more likely to use the spread component and pass, and Denard is somewhat more likely to use the option component and run, but it's all relative -- do you, opposing defender, really want to bet the house on which quarterback is going to do which?

Any idea how the Clemson and Tulane offenses fit this metric?

I'm all for this offense being like the West Virginia offenses from 2004-2007. If Denard gets the job and the stable of running backs pproduce we could have a lot of rushing yards just like those offenses. And might I add we have a lot more talented wide receivers to throw into the mix that West Virgina didn't have except for Chris Henry.

Unless one views him as a product of the system, it might be difficult to prove the hypothesis when one considers that the QB driving the stellar numbers was Pat White.

If Denard can execute the zone read at the Big 10 level, and improve his defensive recognition and passing accuracy, then he will be a significant factor.  Those are all big areas to develop, however.  I think that Tate's main areas of development are decision making in both passing and the zone read, and getting healthy.  It will be interesting to see how the QB race unfolds.

you need the threat of the passing game.

See: Robinson, Denard last year.

This goes to the earlier comments on decision making.  RR will most likely go with the QB that he feels is least likely to turn the ball over especially early on in the season since these guys are still a couple years removed from HS.

Running with Denard and an improved offensive line over passing/scrambling/improvising with Tate might produce fewer turnovers and give us the best shot at winning football games since that is what this all about.

read option.  In it's infantile stages, the one read option was just killing defenses because of teh inherent mis match between 270 LB DE and quick and nimble QBs on one side and the numbers advantage with blockers when the ball goes to the RB.  Somewhere along that timeline there has been a shift in a defenses ability to counter the read option.  I guess to compare the success of the zone read option in 2008 and 2009 as compared to the early 2000's would offer some glimpse of how much is attributable to the players and how much is attributable to the system and it's effectiveness.

Interesting post.  We'll find out in 18 days.

To make this analysis meaningful, you need to compare the apparent correlation between the winning percentage and running QB with the same correlation for other programs.  That is, does the winning percentage of other teams increase as they run more.  I suspect the answer would be yes.  This means, the spread or its RR version is no different than other systems.  Teams that run more generally have a higher winning percentage.  

Nice data.  I do think that RR's offense is robust enough to take advantage of whatever skill set his QB possesses.  If the QB is a scrambler, then the offense has all of the delays, split handoffs, read options, etc. that benefit a runner.  If the QB is a better passer, then those little screen passes, bubbles, and short crossing routes are basically runs.  What I gather reading this chart is not so much that RR needs to run the ball to succeed, but that he needs to have an established QB who can do whatever he is "good at" well.  I still believe that if Threet had stuck around last year he would have succeeded because RR would have asked him to run at times but would have been fine throwing 20+ times provided they were shorter passes and the option was still a threat.  Hopefully Tate, Denard, or (shutter) DG can provide that type of consistency. 

I see a QB's runs or passes catching a defense completely flat-footed. They know he can run, and they know he can pass, but just when the DC thinks he's got the WVU offensive game plan dialed in, and calls the next defensive play accordingly - BOOM! - he finds his team playing Where's Waldo?

But, the biggest thing I see in that offense run by Pat White, is that it was a machine. Sure, most of the defenses it faced were pretty horrid. But, it also faced some pretty good teams in bowl games, and just shredded them.

Are there any stats around o-line experience/performance tied to this data?  To me at a high level glance this seems like there is way too high an importance for that one strong player - in this case the QB.

If that really is the case and RR plans on running the ball 60% of the time with the non-sexy slot passes - no thanks - not exciting football.  I always remember watching the WVu games back when he was there and thought - great, but not exciting - seems like watching HS ball.

The statistics that count:

2008 3-9  25.0%

2009 5-7  41.7%