Off-Season Priority #1: Find A Running Game

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by CowboyRoy

LOL.....passing is the only thing that matters. LOL

Defense, running the ball, turnovers, special teams, coaching, not much right? LOL

EFECTIVENESS? LOL

You are wrong, end of story.

You really should try reading the thread and figuring out what is being said instead of making yourself look foolish every time you post. Or just stop opening the thread if you're not even going to even try to comprehend what is being discussed. Right now, you don't even know what the discussion is.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by xwalker

Teams alter their offensive approach when they're ahead by 1 score?

?

Originally Posted by xwalker

Teams pass more when they're behind. If this is correct, then it should be expected that the pass attempts made while behind would be less efficient than the pass attempts made by the team that is ahead.

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Pass attempts are not automatically less effective just because a team is behind. It is the ineffective pass attempts (or ineffective pass D) that causes the team to fall behind.

Is that opinion or is it supported statistically?

Originally Posted by xwalker

It appears that your opinions are:
A correlation between rush attempts and winning are an effect not a cause of winning (i.e. stats can be misleading).

A correlation between pass attempts and winning are a cause not an effect of winning. (i.e. stats are absolute).

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Your first statement is correct, but your second is not. The number of attempts -- whether rushing or passing -- does not cause a team to win or lose, they are an effect of the game situation.

The EFFECTIVENESS of the pass attempts and pass defense is what causes a team to win, in most cases.

I intended to say this:

"It appears that your opinions are:
A correlation between rush attempts and winning is an effect not a cause of winning (i.e. stats can be misleading).

A correlation between pass effectiveness and winning is a cause not an effect of winning. (i.e. stats are absolute)."


The primary point is how do you prove that run attempts correlation is effect and pass effectiveness correlation is cause in terms of winning?

[phildominator]

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense.



1. A yard gained is a yard, regardless if it's passing or rushing. Just like 100 pennies or $1 bill. Furthermore, a great rushing attack gains less yards than a great passing attack. To take that even further, less yards means less scoring. A great rushing game with 150 yards, you're still only getting 150 yards. That's only enough yards to reach the end zone twice if both possessions started on the 20-yard line (80 yards TD + 70 yards for a FG).

Without any passing, that's only 10 points.

Conversely, a great passing attack and you're getting twice as many yards with 300 yards. Assuming you're again starting from the 20 yard line, that's 21 points (80 yards TD + 80 yards TD + 80 yards TD).

So, even with an effective rushing attack, if you fail to pass well, your offense won't be scoring much.

As a result, if the other team rushed to it's hearts delight, it didn't equal victory if we passed significantly better than them. Who cares if the opponent rushes for 150 yards if you've passed for 350 yards? As long as the enemy QB didn't also pass effectively, you've been more successful moving the ball.

Today, I'll take a QB passing for 350 yards with RB rushing for 50 yards over my opponent rushing for 150 yards and QB passing for 200 yards.


2. The increasing yield of successful passing - Historically, what's deemed as successful rushing has been the same. Whether it's the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s or today, 100 yards is the benchmark for success. That hasn't changed much.

Passing, on the other hand -- it's a no-brainer that passing today yields more results than the past. In the past, a good passing attack in the past was 250 yards with 55-60% completion % and ~20:13 TD:INT ratio.

In passing today, a benchmark for a good passing attack is 300 yards with 65-70% completion % and ~30:13 INT ratio.

Especially with the rule changes, coordinators are only now understanding really how to pass efficiently and effectively. As a result, more rewards (ie yards and TDs) per risk (ie turnover).


3. Even if you pass effectively, certain old-fashioned rules still apply:
A. You still have to score TDs, as opposed to FGs. No point in passing for 500 yards if you bog down in the red zone and your opponent scores TDs.
B. You still cannot lose the turnover battle. No point in passing for 500 yards if you can't even attempt the FG.
C. Starting field position is still important, ie defense/special teams.
D. Your defense still has to stop the other team's passing attack.

[Blitzen32]

Originally Posted by phildominator

3. Even if you pass effectively, certain old-fashioned rules still apply:
A. You still have to score TDs, as opposed to FGs. No point in passing for 500 yards if you bog down in the red zone and your opponent scores TDs.
B. You still cannot lose the turnover battle. No point in passing for 500 yards if you can't even attempt the FG.
C. Starting field position is still important, ie defense/special teams.
D. Your defense still has to stop the other team's passing attack.

E. Never eat yellow snow.

[Beast_from_East]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

= not true.

Every team tries to run the ball "at least some." More running or better running does not make your passing more effective.

So play action passes dont work better if the linebackers actually think you are running? If they know you cant run because your oline sucks, do you think they are going to cheat up or just drop back into coverage?


What you are saying is that coverage does not have any effect on how well you pass, this is just not true. If the defense has to put an extra man in the box to help stop the run, then all of a sudden my WRs have one less man in the secondary to cover them.

You are telling me that having one less man in the secondary has no affect on how well you pass? Sorry, no way I can buy that.

[Beast_from_East]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Pass attempts are not automatically less effective just because a team is behind. It is the ineffective pass attempts (or ineffective pass D) that causes the team to fall behind.




Your first statement is correct, but your second is not. The number of attempts -- whether rushing or passing -- does not cause a team to win or lose, they are an effect of the game situation.

The EFFECTIVENESS of the pass attempts and pass defense is what causes a team to win, in most cases.

How can more coverage make a passing game more effective?

What we are saying is that a WR like Dez is going to have an easier time catching the ball if he is single covered compared to double covered. If Dallas can run the ball and force a safety to drop down in the box, then Dez doesnt have to worry about the safety covering him as well as the CB.

So please explain to me how less coverage does not equal more effective passing and you get less coverage if the defense is having to commit extra people to stop your running game.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now that is an interesting hypothesis. If running the ball increases YPA for example then you end up in the same place.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by xwalker

Is that opinion or is it supported statistically?

None of this is an opinion. It has all been proved by years of research and analysis by other people.

As far as that specific point, passes are not less efficient because a team is behind. In fact, both winners and losers pass better when they're behind by 1-7 points in the first half than when they're ahead by 1-7 points in the first half. Winners also pass better when they're behind by 1-7 points in the second half than when they're ahead by 1-7 in the second half. Losers pass almost exactly the same in the second half whether they're ahead by 1-7 or behind by 1-7 -- they average slightly more yards per play and get sacked slightly less when they're behind, but they have a slightly higher passer rating and lower interception rating when they're ahead.

I intended to say this:

"It appears that your opinions are:
A correlation between rush attempts and winning is an effect not a cause of winning (i.e. stats can be misleading).

A correlation between pass effectiveness and winning is a cause not an effect of winning. (i.e. stats are absolute)."


The primary point is how do you prove that run attempts correlation is effect and pass effectiveness correlation is cause in terms of winning?

It's easy -- compare winners and losers in the same situations, in the first half, in the first three quarters, etc. Did the teams that won run more frequently than the teams that lost? As the stats I posted yesterday show, no, they did not --

In the first half of games this season, with the score tied, the team that ended up winning the game ran the ball 44.1 percent of the time. The team that ended up losing the game ran the ball 44.5 percent of the time.

Through three quarters, the team that ended up winning the game ran the ball 44.0 percent of the time when the score was tied. The team that ended up losing the game ran the ball 45.1 percent of the time.

When behind by 1-8 points (within one score) in the first half, the team that ended up winning the game ran the ball 41.5 percent of the time. The team that ended up losing the game ran the ball 41.0 percent of the time.

Through three quarters, when behind by 1-8 points, the team that ended up winning the game ran the ball 42.7 percent of the time. The team that ended up losing the game ran the ball 42.1 percent of the time.

When ahead by 1-8 points in the first half, the team that ended up winning the game ran the ball 43.2 percent of the time. The team that ended up losing the game ran the ball 43.7 percent of the time.

Through three quarters, when ahead by 1-8 points, the team that ended up winning the game ran the ball 43.9 percent of the time. The team that ended up losing the game ran the ball 43.8 percent of the time.

As you can see, winners and losers ran the ball almost exactly the same percentage of time based on the game situation -- winners did not run it a higher percentage of the time than normal, based on the game situation.

If you do the same thing with passing efficiency, winners pass the ball much more effectively in the same situations. That's how they get the leads -- and they protect the leads by preventing the other team from passing effectively.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by Beast_from_East

So play action passes dont work better if the linebackers actually think you are running? If they know you cant run because your oline *****, do you think they are going to cheat up or just drop back into coverage?


What you are saying is that coverage does not have any effect on how well you pass, this is just not true. If the defense has to put an extra man in the box to help stop the run, then all of a sudden my WRs have one less man in the secondary to cover them.

You are telling me that having one less man in the secondary has no affect on how well you pass? Sorry, no way I can buy that.

I've explained this many times. Play-action passes can work even if you can't run the ball well. Defenses react more to personnel, formations, game situations and execution more than previous rushing success during that game. Look at Romo's success on play-action passes this season -- how was that possible without much of a running game? Answer: Because it has almost nothing to do with rushing success.

Look, lots of people have these preconceived notions about what affects this or that and what would make the passing game work better, but if rushing the ball better actually made your passing game better, that would show up on the field -- and it would show up in the stats. Teams that ran better in games would pass the ball better than teams that don't run as well. It would be evident that when the running game is working, the passing game works better -- but that's not the case. There are some games when that happens, and there are other games when it doesn't. Overall, there is very little correlation between the two. There might be a few plays in every game when the safety sneaks up and the offense takes advantage by passing over him, but there are just as many plays when the safety sneaks up and the offense doesn't take advantage. And ultimately, a high percentage of games are decided by one team needing to pass at the end and the other knowing that it's going to pass -- there's no real threat of rushing, and it's just one team's pass offense against the other team's pass defense, and the one that succeeds usually wins the game.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by Beast_from_East

How can more coverage make a passing game more effective?

What we are saying is that a WR like Dez is going to have an easier time catching the ball if he is single covered compared to double covered. If Dallas can run the ball and force a safety to drop down in the box, then Dez doesnt have to worry about the safety covering him as well as the CB.

So please explain to me how less coverage does not equal more effective passing and you get less coverage if the defense is having to commit extra people to stop your running game.

How many plays per game would a safety drop down into the box if you're running well, compared with if you're not running well? Is the opponent going to keep two safeties deep when you bring in a jumbo package on third-and-1 just because you're not running well? Is the opponent going to put a safety in the box on third-and-8 just because you are running well? Or will the defense play based on the down and distance? Is the defense going to load up against the run on first-and-10 when you're down by 10 points in the fourth quarter, or will the defense play based on the game situation?

A theory about how things *should* happen is nice, but in reality, whatever advantage is gained is minimal -- if any. It happens so rarely, and teams pass effectively without rushing well so often that it makes almost no difference in the outcomes of games.

[cowboysooner]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

How many plays per game would a safety drop down into the box if you're running well, compared with if you're not running well? Is the opponent going to keep two safeties deep when you bring in a jumbo package on third-and-1 just because you're not running well? Is the opponent going to put a safety in the box on third-and-8 just because you are running well? Or will the defense play based on the down and distance? Is the defense going to load up against the run on first-and-10 when you're down by 10 points in the fourth quarter, or will the defense play based on the game situation?

A theory about how things *should* happen is nice, but in reality, whatever advantage is gained is minimal -- if any. It happens so rarely, and teams pass effectively without rushing well so often that it makes almost no difference in the outcomes of games.

If you have a running qb or Adrian Peterson it's a lot. If you don't it probably does not change much. Those two things actually dictate coverage. The qb knows he is getting zone because if they play man it looks the packers on Saturday or OU in the cotton bowl.

It was not by chance that ad ran for 210 and 199 against the pack.

If you can run you will help your offensive line greatly.

There are qbs that are so good that it does not matter if they have pressure or know the coverage (aaron rodgers) but it really helps most of the rest of them

You are right tho there are no teams that running the ball 10% more efeciently is going to help vs passing 10% more efficiently.

[Eddie]

Yes, we need to get back to basics.

Run and stop the run.

Why have we gotten away from this.

Our motto over the past half decade has been:

Pass and stop the pass. Look where it's gotten us.

Fix the OL. Fix the DL. Grab two RB's late in the draft.

Ground and pound. Romo will not have as many opportunities to mess things up. The game should be taken off of Romo's shoulders.

[wick]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Yes, we need to get back to basics.

Run and stop the run.

Why have we gotten away from this.

Our motto over the past half decade has been:

Pass and stop the pass. Look where it's gotten us.

Fix the OL. Fix the DL. Grab two RB's late in the draft.

Ground and pound. Romo will not have as many opportunities to mess things up. The game should be taken off of Romo's shoulders.

This is a fine strategy if you don't care about improving our chances of winning games. If the focus has been on passing and stopping the pass, then that's sound decision making because those are what impact winning and losing. The problem isn't our focus, it's our ability to deliver. Our passing defense was abysmal this season and the main reason why we didn't make the playoffs.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by wick

This is a fine strategy if you don't care about improving our chances of winning games. If the focus has been on passing and stopping the pass, then that's sound decision making because those are what impact winning and losing. The problem isn't our focus, it's our ability to deliver. Our passing defense was abysmal this season and the main reason why we didn't make the playoffs.

Whaaaa?

The main reason why we didn't make the playoffs was because our OL was porous like a wet sponge.

Our DL couldn't stop a high school running back.

Our pass D was actually pretty good. Do you make things up to try and sound good? Cause it ain't working ...

[wick]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Whaaaa?

The main reason why we didn't make the playoffs was because our OL was porous like a wet sponge.

Our DL couldn't stop a high school running back.

Our pass D was actually pretty good. Do you make things up to try and sound good? Cause it ain't working ...

Incorrect. The main reason we didn't make the playoffs was ranking 29th in the league in adjusted yards per pass defense.