Off-Season Priority #1: Find A Running Game

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by jterrell

You have a stat that doesn't include passing TDs? Yet claims to address passing effectiveness? That's absurd.

Nope. There is no significant correlation attached to the method of scoring.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

You are using total yards for rankings, which is a terrible way to judge how effective a team is at running or passing.

For the umpteenth time, there is no proof that running the ball better helps a team pass the ball better or win more to any degree whatsoever. This has been proved year after year in the NFL. But closed-minded people who cling to their disproved theories can't accept that fact.

In terms of stats maybe not as for what takes place on the field yes there is. Safety being forced to move up, LB biting up on the run. The physical toll it takes on a defense as they are getting hammered. It matters and if it didn't teams would not run the ball the game would be 100% passing and nothing else but it does not work that way.

HC after HC talks about the importance of the running game to them so this non sense of well running does not win games? It does if it helps the offense move the ball and the chains

You want to use a stat watch the game see what a big time running game will force a defense to do to combat it and the passing lanes it creates.

It is not that hard to see and stats are not the be all

[wick]

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

In terms of stats maybe not as for what takes place on the field yes there is. Safety being forced to move up, LB biting up on the run. The physical toll it takes on a defense as they are getting hammered. It matters and if it didn't teams would not run the ball the game would be 100% passing and nothing else but it does not work that way.

HC after HC talks about the importance of the running game to them so this non sense of well running does not win games? It does if it helps the offense move the ball and the chains

You want to use a stat watch the game see what a big time running game will force a defense to do to combat it and the passing lanes it creates.

It is not that hard to see and stats are not the be all

Let's suppose running the ball effectively does help your passing game. We should then be able to see a clear trend over many games and seasons that shows a positive correlation between more effective running and more effective passing, right? After all, if passing doesn't actually get better as running effectiveness increases, then our theory is just wrong. But as Adam has pointed out in this thread, there is no such correlation.

I fully appreciate that many football people claim there is a correlation between they two, but they are simply wrong, just as legions of baseball people were proven wrong in their beliefs about things like bunting and stolen bases over the last 30 years.

[wick]

To add to the prior point, people tend to confuse the success of play-action passing with the success of running the ball. Play-action passing does work because of how it changes the spacing on the field, resulting in larger windows between the second and third levels of the defense. The fallacy is in the notion that a good running game is a prerequisite for effective play-action passing. There's no correlation between the two. Play-action passing works by tricking a linebacker or safety into seeing a running play develop. Players react to a running play independent of the success of prior running plays.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by wick

Let's suppose running the ball effectively does help your passing game. We should then be able to see a clear trend over many games and seasons that shows a positive correlation between more effective running and more effective passing, right? After all, if passing doesn't actually get better as running effectiveness increases, then our theory is just wrong. But as Adam has pointed out in this thread, there is no such correlation.

I fully appreciate that many football people claim there is a correlation between they two, but they are simply wrong, just as legions of baseball people were proven wrong in their beliefs about things like bunting and stolen bases over the last 30 years.

Not every team is built the same, running game is very important to some teams and HC still will tell you the importance of running and stopping the run. That takes nothing away from the importance of the passing game. However watch the games sometimes, safeties start moving up you get 8 in the box you start creating the one on one matchups, LB move up creating gaps behind them. Sorry but it matters

This is not a debate about passing vs running but the running game does matter and can have a big affect on the games if you don't get that then fine but it not myth it is fact

This past game RGIII threw for 100 yards Morring ran for 200 and had 4 rushing TD that fricken mattered big time. There are a lot more risk in the passing game than the running game.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by wick

To add to the prior point, people tend to confuse the success of play-action passing with the success of running the ball. Play-action passing does work because of how it changes the spacing on the field, resulting in larger windows between the second and third levels of the defense. The fallacy is in the notion that a good running game is a prerequisite for effective play-action passing. There's no correlation between the two. Play-action passing works by tricking a linebacker or safety into seeing a running play develop. Players react to a running play independent of the success of prior running plays.

No one is confusing a damn thing. HC around the NFL will tell you the same thing. You want to think running does not matter? Well given the fact how often teams run the ball why bother? why run the ball at all if it does not matter? This is not flag football

[Doomsday101]

It is almost too funny this debate when the leading rushing teams in the NFL are

1 Wash
2 Minn
3 Sea
4 SF
7 NE
8 Hou
11 Balt

What do they have in common?

[wick]

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

Not every team is built the same, running game is very important to some teams and HC still will tell you the importance of running and stopping the run. That takes nothing away from the importance of the passing game. However watch the games sometimes, safeties start moving up you get 8 in the box you start creating the one on one matchups, LB move up creating gaps behind them. Sorry but it matters

This is not a debate about passing vs running but the running game does matter and can have a big affect on the games if you don't get that then fine but it not myth it is fact

This past game RGIII threw for 100 yards Morring ran for 200 and had 4 rushing TD that fricken mattered big time. There are a lot more risk in the passing game than the running game.

When you state that something is a fact, you are obliged to actually prove it and not simply declare it. Adam has proven with facts that you are wrong. Again, nobody is saying play-action passing is not effective, but it is simply incorrect to claim that successful play-action passing is a function of successful running.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Nope. There is no significant correlation attached to the method of scoring.

Of course it doesn't matter how you score -- it's how often.

2011
Giants: 32 red zone TD -- 15 passing and 17 rushing.

Cowboys: 24 red zone TD -- 20 passing and 4 rushing.

I look at those numbers and conclude that it's important to be able to run in the red zone. I conclude that the Giants won the division in 2011 because they scored more TD (even more TD per possession) than we did. And I attribute that to their rushing TD.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

No one is confusing a damn thing. HC around the NFL will tell you the same thing. You want to think running does not matter? Well given the fact how often teams run the ball why bother? why run the ball at all if it does not matter? This is not flag football

Nothing in the statistics say that running the ball doesn't matter. They say that running it effectively doesn't make you more likely to win.

There are game situations where you very definitely have to run the ball. It's just that, other than short yardage/goal line situations, doing it better than your opponent isn't going to make you (significantly) more likely to win.

Yes, you want to call passing plays from 3rd and 4 rather than 3rd and 10. But a more effective passing offense can overcome the difference between 3rd and 6 and 3rd and 4 fairly readily. Or that differential is dwarfed by what happens when you cough up a ball in a passing situation. Those kinds of passing game inefficiencies are the things that cause you to lose.

Again, if running the ball well keeps you on the field and helps you avoid passing ineffectively, by all means do it. You'll still lose if the other guy can pass more effectively than you can, but if avoiding the negative passing plays works in your favor, it's the smart thing to do. But it's smart because it keeps you from making a passing game mistake, not because rushing better than the other guy correlates strongly with winning.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by wick

When you state that something is a fact, you are obliged to actually prove it and not simply declare it. Adam has proven with facts that you are wrong. Again, nobody is saying play-action passing is not effective, but it is simply incorrect to claim that successful play-action passing is a function of successful running.

I prove it by showing you the teams in the post season 7 of the 12 are top rushing teams in the NFL. Running the ball effectively keeps teams in down and distance that allows play action to work. No one is buying a play fake on 3rd 15 unless they are fricken brain dead. To claim the running game does not matter?

Again 12 of the 7 post season teams use the run and use it damn well.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by Idgit

Nothing in the statistics say that running the ball doesn't matter. They say that running it effectively doesn't make you more likely to win.

There are game situations where you very definitely have to run the ball. It's just that, other than short yardage/goal line situations, doing it better than your opponent isn't going to make you (significantly) more likely to win.

Yes, you want to call passing plays from 3rd and 4 rather than 3rd and 10. But a more effective passing offense can overcome the difference between 3rd and 6 and 3rd and 4 fairly readily. Or that differential is dwarfed by what happens when you cough up a ball in a passing situation. Those kinds of passing game inefficiencies are the things that cause you to lose.

[View Full Quote]Again, if running the ball well keeps you on the field and helps you avoid passing ineffectively, by all means do it. You'll still lose if the other guy can pass more effectively than you can, but if avoiding the negative passing plays works in your favor, it's the smart thing to do. But it's smart because it keeps you from making a passing game mistake, not because rushing better than the other guy correlates strongly with winning.

and 7 of the top rushing teams are sitting in post season tell them that it does not work. Tell them that is does not matter they would laugh in your face. It matters if it didn't teams would not bother to run it as often as they do.

Stats are not some tell all and teams would not use high picks to get RB if they did not feel the need for it but they do.

Again not debating run vs pass what I'm saying if the running game help you move the ball, move the chains takes pressure off the QB by keeping defense honest and the fact the physical toll a running game can put on the defense as the OL is allowed to attack not sit back in pass blocking it matter.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Nope. There is no significant correlation attached to the method of scoring.

If we give in and agree with your Views on the importance of passing over rushing, can we get an update on the Salary Cap?

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by Idgit

There are game situations where you very definitely have to run the ball.

This is where I'm coming from.

[Hoov]

Originally Posted by wick

To add to the prior point, people tend to confuse the success of play-action passing with the success of running the ball. Play-action passing does work because of how it changes the spacing on the field, resulting in larger windows between the second and third levels of the defense. The fallacy is in the notion that a good running game is a prerequisite for effective play-action passing. There's no correlation between the two. Play-action passing works by tricking a linebacker or safety into seeing a running play develop. Players react to a running play independent of the success of prior running plays.

Interesting point, i had never thought about it from that standpoint... and i can see that from that statement, if correct, the more important thing would be how good of a play fake you run rather than how many yards you obtained on previous runs. And i think there is some validity there as to "players reaction".

But for devils advocate...is there a chance that a defensive coordinator would coach a safety to play pass and to not come up so much to play the run if your front seven are stiffling the other teams run game because it is ineffective ? Or just call different defensive schemes because a team is struggling to run the ball ?

In those two senarios, it would seem that an inability to run the ball could hamper a passing offense because the other defense would play primarily a pass defense against you.

Now that is different from saying a good run game will produce a good passing game. It is more or less suggesting that a bad run game could hurt a team that usually has a good passing game.