*Before He Can Run After the Catch

by John Morgan on Sep 14, 2010 1:41 PM PDT

Frank Gore is better than his teammates.

Brian Burke determined that from 2002-2006, 43% of all passing yardage were attained through run after the catch. All coaches want to limit run after the catch, but few emphasize it like Monte Kiffin's disciples. It's built into bend but don't break. If a defender can not stop a receiver where he receives, the chance to "break", to allow a score, increases greatly.

Seattle seemed to tackle well on Sunday. It certainly defended the pass very well. The Seahawks limited Alex Smith to a paltry yards per attempt, 5, and a brutal net yards per attempt, 2.57. Did Seattle defend the pass by tackling well and stopping receivers before they could attain additional yards? Did Seattle perform better at preventing yards after the catch than typical?

As it turns out, not really.

Projected yards after catch: 96.75

Actual: 94

Frank Gore accounted for 46 of Seattle's 94 yards allowed after catch.

So, on the one hand, Seattle only performed a bit above average at preventing yards after the catch. On the other hand, much of that was accomplished by one of the best running backs in the NFL. Excluding Gore's six receptions, Seattle only allowed 2.4 yards after the catch per reception. Why would we exclude that? Well, we shouldn't. I mention it because it's interesting, not because it's a fair interpretation of the stats.

Anyway, it's something I would like to track through the season. If Seattle wants to bend, allow yardage, but not break, allow touchdowns, it must keep up its tight coverage and sound tackling. That is something we should see some evidence of in opponent yards after catch.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Data only a tool

I am going to disagree (kind of anyway) that excluding Gore’s YAC makes sense. It does not tell us generally that Seattle is great at stopping YAC, but how we are going about doing it.

I don’t know this to be the case, but if we decided that we needed to limit YAC on mid-range and deep balls, while giving up the swing routes to the RB, we might get something that looks like the stats above.

Would we like to limit everybody all the time all over the field? Of course. Can we? Nope. There has to be a give and take in the passing game unless you have completely outmatched the guys on the other side of the ball. We won’t do that often so I think the question needs to be a little bit more subtle than general YAC.

by brokejumper on Sep 14, 2010 1:52 PM PDT reply actions

I think I understand you, but not certain.

are you saying, you disagree that we shouldn’t exclude Gore’s YAC? That you think it makes sense to do so?

by jacobstevens on Sep 14, 2010 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions

I remember that screen.

Looked just like the one in the preseason. SF was watching some tape.

Don’t know quite who to pin that one on, but one thing that I haven’t seen in Chris Clemmons diagnose and blow up a screen to his side. Maybe I’m wrong, but this is concerning to me if opposing coordinators pick up on this and start busting screens to the “Clemmons-Herring-Jennings” side of the ball.

by timlin45 on Sep 14, 2010 1:52 PM PDT reply actions

Even if Herring and Clemmons read that correctly the defense as a whole was geared for a move strong side.

Even if they had it diagnosed on the snap there is no way for them to make that play the way the rest defense was lined up.

by Joshua Kasparek on Sep 14, 2010 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Hence my disclaimer

Not busting on Clemmons or anyone for this play. Merely using it as a segue to an undercurrent of concern I had in a subtle attempt to get the Gulls thoughts on this particular possibility. =)

by timlin45 on Sep 14, 2010 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Clemons

by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 14, 2010 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions

I'll just call him Cyclone from now on

by Joshua Kasparek on Sep 14, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions

If there was a stat to include missed or broken tackles it would be a better judgement of what you're looking for.

The screen to gore that resulted in the bulk of that receiving yardage allowed for YAC because the defense was playing against the strong side. A couple of nice plays with Delaney walker accounted for a good chuck also but not because they tackled poorly or missed a read somewhere the 49ers read the plays properly and made them.

by Joshua Kasparek on Sep 14, 2010 1:53 PM PDT reply actions

C is for...

Yards after Catch or Yards after Contact.

I’d like to see that stat. Also, with all the hot statistics work I still don’t get why people never use median (or any percentile based stats for that matter) to get a better view of the expected probability of performance on any given play.

by timlin45 on Sep 14, 2010 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions

How does the bend but don't break defense work?

As in, what is the theoretical way it is supposed to work?

by Snowman1025 on Sep 14, 2010 2:32 PM PDT reply actions

It's supposed to not give up the big play at the sacrifice of easier little plays

So it bends in small pieces, but doesn’t break in terms of big plays and long touchdowns.

It also needs to be good in the redzone.

by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 14, 2010 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Which is how it worked out, with some help from the 49ers.

Smith was 15 for 20 with 125 yds in the first half. But 12 of those 15 completions were for less than 10 yds.

They did get into the redzone 3 times in the first half and luckily helped us hold them to 2 field goals.

by talofox on Sep 14, 2010 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Part of that plan is to get turnovers.

If you don’t, the plan is less good.

by Kryten on Sep 15, 2010 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions

I would think that the fact the Seahawks were ahead by a fair margin for a while meant higher YAC.

Naturally, with a big lead, you go into a prevent mode. That certainly means allowing more room underneath, meaning WR’s/backs/TE’s have a little more time to gain an extra yard or two before being tackled.

by djafrot on Sep 14, 2010 6:01 PM PDT reply actions

Test of Significance

John – your verbiage of “Projected” and “actual” sound similar to a test of statistical significance (chi-squared). Are you starting to look at NFL stats within the realm of statistical significance/changes that are unlikely to have occurred by chance? Or – am I reading way too much into a logical word choice?

by JerHawk on Sep 15, 2010 5:59 AM PDT reply actions