Off-Season Priority #1: Find A Running Game

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by wick

How did Washington pass on the plays you are changing from runs?

At the same rate (66.9).

Originally Posted by wick

Did Dallas eliminate interceptions on passing plays converted to runs?

If a 55.9 rating on that many attempts says we did.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

I'm assuming both QB keep their passer ratings of 55.9 and 66.9, so while Romo wouldn't have had as many INT, he wouldn't have had as many TD either.

True. I have tried to say this may ways passing game matters and it matters a lot however the running game especially on some of the NFL teams matter a lot it is part of who they are and what they are as an offense.

It take pressure off the QB it allows that QB to play in situation that are favorable like 2nd and 4 where defense has to be on the lookout for run or pass they can't just pin their ears back and go after the QB.

Not many teams are getting fooled by offense staring at a 2nd and 20 we all pretty much know what that offense has to do and that is throw the ball.

[wick]

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

They pass effeciently they are not big time passing teams hell Washington ranks 30th in passing attemps why because the run the damn ball. Morris is not picking up these 100 yard rushing days breaking the skins rushing record by watching RGIII throwing the ball they run the ball plain and simple

Meantime Sea is ranked 32 in passing attempts, SF is ranked 31 in passing attempts why because they run the ball.

As for Dallas wins that game IF there are a lot fricken IF's bottom line these teams run the ball they do it very well they keep themselfs in down and distance that allows them the option of run or pass unlike Dallas who finds themselfs in long situations where the defense damn well knows they have to throw it. It is not that hard to understand evidently you don't get it chances are never will

To punctuate my point, it is a comma mistake to conclude that rushing wins in the NFL. It is passing, period.

[Hoov]

While reading through this thread it reminded me that at some point Andy Reid had made a statement about the importance of running the ball being overrated by many poeple and that passing the ball correlates to winning games.

Maybe he was referring to the trends and stats referred to in this thread.
I dont remember him getting into a lot of specific stats with his statement, and he often gives the vibe that most fans really dont get the game of football and it would be beneath him to try to break it down for them so is doubtful that he would spend time to really elaborate.

I do remember him getting ripped after that press conference by the radio guys and fans really bad and he has always been criticized for not wanting to run enough. In philly the fans have been wanting to run him out of town for years but around the league he is a pretty highly respected coach.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by wick

To punctuate my point, it is a comma mistake to conclude that rushing wins in the NFL. It is passing, period.

Think you would have a hard time selling that to the coaches sitting in the post season. Passing is important and to be effective in the passing game, for some teams it is their ability to run to set up good situations for the passing game.

Defense can't sell out on the passing game when they have to be concerned with stopping the run. Defenses would not bother putting 8 in the box if it did not matter.

When defense are forced to bring up the extra man in the box that is when the offense can then take those big shot down the field knowing the CB is not getting the help over the top.

For some teams the running game damn well is a big part of their offense.

[AdamJT13]

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

If a "big time running game" forced defenses to play in such a way that it "opens up the passing game," then it would show up in games. But it doesn't. Teams don't pass any better when they are running the ball great than they do when they can't run it at all.

[AdamJT13]

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

Except that the same effect is possible even for teams that don't run the ball very well. It works based more on personnel, formation and game situation than previous success. The benefit of being able to run better is very minimal.

Look at all of the run-based offenses that succeeded despite averaging a very low YPC. Why are they successful at plugging away at the run even though they average less than 4.0 YPC? Because it really doesn't matter how successful they are at running. If they run it a lot for 3.5 YPC but are effective when they throw the ball, they will win more than if they ran it a lot for 4.5 YPC but are not effective throwing the ball.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by 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

Total rushing yards does not equate to being effective at running the ball. If you want to finish near the top of the league in rushing yards, just run it a lot, even if you stink at it. It won't make you any better at running the ball or help you win, but you will rack of the total rushing yards.

[AdamJT13]

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.

How much does something really matter if it doesn't help you win and doesn't help you do something that helps you win?

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

If a "big time running game" forced defenses to play in such a way that it "opens up the passing game," then it would show up in games. But it doesn't. Teams don't pass any better when they are running the ball great than they do when they can't run it at all.

Sorry but when I watch a game and see a team forced to bring guys up in the box then the opposing teams attacking that through the air then what you want me to say? It does not show up in a stat sheet that a defensive safety had to drop down in the box allowing the one on one match up but it still happened. Stats are not the be all. I know you are a stat guy that is great but stats never tell the entire story or the effect the run is having.

You don't think the 1,600 yards Morris put up did not help Washingon win games? That your view

[Hoov]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Except that the same effect is possible even for teams that don't run the ball very well. It works based more on personnel, formation and game situation than previous success. The benefit of being able to run better is very minimal.

Look at all of the run-based offenses that succeeded despite averaging a very low YPC. Why are they successful at plugging away at the run even though they average less than 4.0 YPC? Because it really doesn't matter how successful they are at running. If they run it a lot for 3.5 YPC but are effective when they throw the ball, they will win more than if they ran it a lot for 4.5 YPC but are not effective throwing the ball.

What determines if you are a run-based offense ? Is it the % of runs to pass ratio and if so how high of a % would it have to be for you to consider it a run-based offense.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Except that the same effect is possible even for teams that don't run the ball very well. It works based more on personnel, formation and game situation than previous success. The benefit of being able to run better is very minimal.

Look at all of the run-based offenses that succeeded despite averaging a very low YPC. Why are they successful at plugging away at the run even though they average less than 4.0 YPC? Because it really doesn't matter how successful they are at running. If they run it a lot for 3.5 YPC but are effective when they throw the ball, they will win more than if they ran it a lot for 4.5 YPC but are not effective throwing the ball.

Key word!!!!! Not all teams are built the same. Some teams the run is key it is a vital part of their offense. No not all teams need to be able to run the ball great but some do it is part of what helps them win. Not every team is going to have an Arron Rodgers but they don't need to. Minn beat GB with Rodger why because Ponder is better? No Peterson put of 200 fricken yards that matter that helped them win without Peterson Minn is not winning. Without Morris and his yards and TD washington is not winning.

Stats are an avg of 32 teams but not ever team is built the same way you play to your strenghts and if you have a great rushing attack then you use it to benifet your team.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by xwalker

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?

I've updated my mock in anticipation:

1 - WR Keenan Allen
2 - WR Cordarrelle Patterson
3 - WR Quinton Patton
4 - WR Stedman Bailey
5 - WR Conner Vernon
6 - WR Tavarres King

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

How much does something really matter if it doesn't help you win and doesn't help you do something that helps you win?

It can be something everybody does, or needs to do, and still be the case that doing it more effectively doesn't matter.

Not running at all, for example, puts teams in game situations where passing effectively is more difficult. The incremental benefit of running better than the other guy might not matter, but it doesn't logically follow from that that running itself isn't important.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

How much does something really matter if it doesn't help you win and doesn't help you do something that helps you win?

Just to clarify for anybody who doesn't get it yet...

Yes, he really is saying that the Skins' 274 yards rushing did nothing to help them win, despite 87 yards passing.

And yes, he really is saying that the Giants' 17 red zone rushing TD to Dallas' 4 did nothing to help them win more games in 2011.