Our running game wasn't that bad last year. People can say that teams were able to crowd the line due to a lack of passing attack. And that may be true. But we were 19th in the S&P+ rushing attack, due almost entirely to the fact that we were so successful on a per play basis.
Our problems were:
1. When we were stopped, we were STOPPED. 98 in stuff rate. 105 in power success rate.
2. When we were successful, we were at the minimum of success. 82 in IsoPPP, which measures exactly how successful were you on plays that were successful. Meaning if a successful play is measured by at least 4 yards, how far beyond 4 yards did you typically go?
Based on those stats, it looks like we had an OL that wasn't particularly good, and so we asked our RBs to carry too much of the rushing load. If we are 98 in stuff rate, it's difficult to believe the OL is doing that well on the non-stuff plays.
But also a set of RBs that weren't particularly explosive if teams were crowding the line. Usually the problem with crowding around the line is getting past the first level, meaning you would expect to see a lower success rate. Once you get past the first level of defenders, there is a lot of daylight. If we were 19th in rushing success rate, that has to be a lot of second level runs. And yet, only 82 in rushing explosiveness. That's got to fall on the RBs some.
