Here’s Mackeyser...
It wasn't about dink and dunk. It was about "offensive efficiency".
thus deep balls were eschewed for higher percentage plays which improve the efficiency of the offense.
The problem is that part of why those short plays were so efficient and effective is that the defense still had to defend every blade of grass and giving up a big play is the worst possible outcome, so defenses tend to react to that disproportionately as compared to being able to complete a 3 yard out pass.
Thus, this season after a few games, defenses realized "hey, they're SOLELY focused on efficiency, so we don't have to defend every blade of grass anymore" and well, they were right.
The net effect of that is that those "high efficiency" plays were no longer nearly as efficient.
This where data can fail you: context.
Is a play efficient because it's inherently efficient or because it's part of a mix that forces the defense to focus less on stopping that variety of play?
In many instances this year, McVay found himself relying on plays with ZERO chance of success because unlike in previous years where a safety would have to leave an area or a misdirection would move people... it didn't work anymore.
So what does all this mean? Coupla things.
1) as much as a burner is fun, we have 3 WRs with enough speed to take the top off. Woods, Kupp and Jefferson are all plenty fast enough. A stronger argument could be made for a redzone threat in this offense.
2) unless McVay restores the deep ball, we could have 3 Tyreek Hills and it wouldnt' make any difference.
3) in order to do that, McVay must significantly bolster the pass pro of the interior OL. If you watch the GB game, most of the time, they disrupted our interior just by bull rushing.
4) None of this changes whether the QB is Goff, Watson, Wolford or someone else.
