What not to focus on this off season

[Hoov]

Originally Posted by SkinsandTerps

haha. Sad but true in most cases. haha.



And you would clearly have no understanding of ball control. You want a shoot out.

You dismissing what coaches are saying is pretty silly in this thread though. Stop the run, establish the run. You have to address the OL whether you want to run or pass however. You have to stop the run to get that offense on the field.

It's just unreal that you can't see that.

I think wick's point about rushing td's vs passing td's is that most rushing td's come after you have moved the ball close to the goal line - which is usually the result of passing.

So increasing your number of total td's helps with winning - but the question is how are you getting down into the redzone. Increasing your number of rushing td's may be because a team decides to run the ball more than pass when it is near the goal line - in this case total td's will be the same, passing td's will decrease and rushing td's will increase.

The key to winning is getting more scoring opportunities - and you do that by trunovers and efficient passing to get near the goal line.

Occassionally you will see a 70 yard td run - in that case running the ball gave you another scoring chance but that is rare. Mostly scoring opportunities are acheived by efficient passing - with some runs mixed in - to get you to the goal line but most of the yards are from passing.

Therefore the efficient passing and turnovers are a higher predictor of getting more scoring opportunities than running the ball well.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by wick

1. The running game. This includes running backs and the run blocking aspect of the offensive line. The running game doesn't determine winning and losing in the NFL. There is a mountain of statistical evidence to back this up. Since it doesn't determine winning and losing, minimize your efforts to shore it up. We can find warm bodies at running back late in the draft and in free agency. Don't sign or draft offensive linemen based on their run blocking ability or lack thereof.

Ok, I have a statistical analysis question.

Here is a simplistic scenario:

Team “Strong” – Other teams perceive this team to have a strong running game.

Team “Weak” – Other teams perceive this team to have a weak running game.

Defenses play 7 men “in-the-box” against team Strong.

Defenses play 8 men “in-the-box” against team Weak.

Team Strong has better passing statistics and worse rushing statistics than other teams. They also have more Wins.

Using Passing yardage, Passing average, Rushing yardage and Rushing average, can you statistically determine when defenses play 7 or 8 in-the-box?

[IrishAnto]

Originally Posted by wick

"The rushing game" covers vastly more than a handful of plays each year that result in a rushing touchdown. The fallacy in your argument is that more rushing touchdowns does not mean more overall scoring. It simply means reallocating existing scores from the passing bucket to the rushing bucket. To have a net additive impact, you would need to create more total scoring opportunities.

What do you mean by reallocating existing scores?

Does Rodger Goodell allocate a set number of scores to each team at the beginning of each season and then teams have to figure how many they want to score via the run or pass?

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by SkinsandTerps

That's not true for every team.

For example the Redskins have lost quite a few starters on the defensive side of the ball. To control the bleeding the rush attack had to be solid. They keep the other teams offense off of the field and run the clock down. I am not positive about this stat, but I believe the Redskins have the best 1st down yardage per play in the league. That is because of the threat to run and the execution of the run.

You take away any semblance of a rush attack and your QB will not play more than 3 games next season. And that is being generous. You can't stop the run and your defense will be on the field all game chasing WRs for no reason.

How do you explain the fact that the Redskins averaged more than 5.75 yards per carry in six games this season -- and went 2-4 in those games?

Or that the Redskins averaged less than 4.7 yards per carry in five games -- and went 4-1 in those games?

Or that the Redskins averaged more than 6 adjusted net yards per pass in seven games -- and went 7-0 in those games?

Or that the Redskins averaged less than 5 adjusted net yards per pass in six games -- and went 1-5 in those games?

Or that the team that passed more effectively went 14-2 in the Redskins' games, while the team that ran more effectively went 9-7?

How could such a run-oriented team lose when it runs well and win when it runs poorly? And how does that run-oriented team win when it passes well and lose when it passes poorly?

Shouldn't a run-oriented team win when it runs well and lose when it doesn't, instead of the other way around?

[IrishAnto]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

How do you explain the fact that the Redskins averaged more than 5.75 yards per carry in six games this season -- and went 2-4 in those games?

Or that the Redskins averaged less than 4.7 yards per carry in five games -- and went 4-1 in those games?

Or that the Redskins averaged more than 6 adjusted net yards per pass in seven games -- and went 7-0 in those games?

Or that the Redskins averaged less than 5 adjusted net yards per pass in six games -- and went 1-5 in those games?

Or that the team that passed more effectively went 14-2 in the Redskins' games, while the team that ran more effectively went 9-7?

How could such a run-oriented team lose when it runs well and win when it runs poorly? And how does that run-oriented team win when it passes well and lose when it passes poorly?

Shouldn't a run-oriented team win when it runs well and lose when it doesn't, instead of the other way around?

In order to give you a proper explanation you’d have to know the following (and the list is not exhaustive).

How many times did the Skins run in the game?

How many times did they pass?

Where they behind or in the lead?

How many penalties did they have?

How many turnovers did either team have?

How well either teams defenses were playing?

How well either teams special teams were playing?

You can’t just take running stats and extrapolate the results from that alone.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by IrishAnto

You can’t just take running stats and extrapolate the results from that alone.

So it's just a coincidence that the win-loss records for all 32 teams correlate highly to passing effectiveness and hardly at all to rushing effectiveness, year after year after year? That's amazing.

[IrishAnto]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

So it's just a coincidence that the win-loss records for all 32 teams correlate highly to passing effectiveness and hardly at all to rushing effectiveness, year after year after year? That's amazing.

So what makes a team effective passing the ball?

Is it just one thing or many things?

I suspect the latter.

Do teams that pass and run the ball effectively do better than teams that only pass effectively?

There are many factors that determine why some teams do better than others year after year.

Coaching, drafting, scheme etc. etc.

What's amazing you keep trying to tell us that passing efficiency it's the only factor.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by IrishAnto

Do teams that pass and run the ball effectively do better than teams that only pass effectively?

I've answered that before. Teams that passed and ran the ball more effectively than their opponent won 80 percent of the time this season (104-26). Teams that passed more effectively than their opponent but ran the ball worse than their opponent won 78.3 percent of the time (99-26-1). That's a virtually negligible difference.

[phildominator]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

I've answered that before. Teams that passed and ran the ball more effectively than their opponent won 80 percent of the time this season (104-26). Teams that passed more effectively than their opponent but ran the ball worse than their opponent won 78.3 percent of the time (99-26-1). That's a virtually negligible difference.

So what does this all mean in terms of becoming better for next year?

Although we ran for a franchise-low for team rushing yards in 2012, we still attempted too many rushes (since statistically a first down run doesn't help us win versus a zero-yard gain), right?

Does this mean we need a better QB, since a better running game wouldn't have helped Romo anyway?

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by phildominator

So what does this all mean in terms of becoming better for next year?

Although we ran for a franchise-low for team rushing yards in 2012, we still attempted too many rushes (since statistically a first down run doesn't help us win versus a zero-yard gain), right?

Just because how well you run the ball doesn't really affect your chances of winning doesn't mean there's no value in running it at all. Sometimes you run the ball just to keep the defense honest.

Does this mean we need a better QB, since a better running game wouldn't have helped Romo anyway?

We need a better performance in the passing game and a better performance from our pass defense. How to go about that is the question -- Would another QB be better? Other receivers? Better pass blockers? Better coverage players in the secondary and at linebacker? Better pass rushers? Other schemes on offense and/or defense? All of the above? How many of the above are feasible.

Those are the questions that we should be addressing this offseason.

[phildominator]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Just because how well you run the ball doesn't really affect your chances of winning doesn't mean there's no value in running it at all. Sometimes you run the ball just to keep the defense honest.

So I ask -- did we have too many or the right amount of rush attempts?

[phildominator]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

We need a better performance in the passing game and a better performance from our pass defense. How to go about that is the question -- Would another QB be better? Other receivers? Better pass blockers? Better coverage players in the secondary and at linebacker? Better pass rushers? Other schemes on offense and/or defense? All of the above? How many of the above are feasible.

Those are the questions that we should be addressing this offseason.

I think our best bang for the buck is better pass blocking, a passing scheme adjustment so it's not as reliant on the big play and more defensive turnovers (whether new players, new coach, new scheme or pure luck).

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by phildominator

So I ask -- did we have too many or the right amount of rush attempts?

Well, it's difficult to say "we should have run the ball more" or "we should have run the ball less" when game situations are a big determining factor.

I posted this earlier in the thread --

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Here are all 32 teams' percentage of running plays on first or second downs in the first three quarters of games with the score within 7 points, minus the last two minutes of the first half. This should eliminate almost all situations when a team has to throw the ball or is simply trying to run out the clock.

1. KAN	67.72	
2. WAS	63.01	(division champion, No. 4 seed)
3. MIN	62.85	(wild-card team)
4. NYJ	62.81
5. SEA	62.34	(wild-card team)
6. BUF	55.75
7. TEN	55.21
8. CAR	54.89
9. BAL	54.08	(division champion, No. 4 seed)
10. JAX	53.93
11. ARI	53.66
12. SFO	53.56	(division champion, No. 2 seed)
13. MIA	53.42
14. STL	53.35
15. CHI	53.13
16. OAK	52.01
17. CLE	51.58
18. NYG	50.69 [View Full Quote]19. PIT	50.23
20. TAM	49.87
21. IND	49.29	(wild-card team)
22. DAL	49.01
23. DET	48.86
24. HOU	48.70	(division champion, No. 3 seed)
25. SDG	47.79
26. PHI	47.72
27. CIN	47.34	(wild-card team)
28. GNB	46.19	(division champion, No. 3 seed)
29. NWE	46.14	(division champion, No. 2 seed)
30. NOR	45.08
31. DEN	44.72	(division champion, No. 1 seed)
32. ATL	41.46	(division champion, No. 1 seed)

As you can see, a lot of teams were very successful by passing the ball on a lower percentage of these plays than we did. One of the main reasons why we ended up with so few total attempts was because we ended up in situations when we had to pass the ball to catch up.

I hope we end up with a lot more rushing attempts next season because that would mean we're ahead more often and trying to run out the clock late in games instead of passing from behind.

[IrishAnto]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Just because how well you run the ball doesn't really affect your chances of winning doesn't mean there's no value in running it at all. Sometimes you run the ball just to keep the defense honest.

I would also suggest that being able to run well in the red zone improves your chances of scoring a touchdown, as the reduced area the defense has to cover makes passing more difficult especially if you don’t have the ability to punch it in on the ground.

[Reverend Conehead]

Uh ... no. I'm aware it's become a pass happy league. However, pass happy is not right for this team. Romo does way better and is much less likely to throw picks when he doesn't have to shoulder the full load himself. John Madden always said, "A quarterback's best friend is a good running game." The applies especially to this team. Notice how much worse we played without DeMarco Murray. When he came back, we went on our winning spree. Unfortunately, Murray has proven to be injury prone. We can keep him, as he's effective. However, we need to find another effective running back to share duties with him, someone better than Felix Jones. I'm not saying spend a first-round pick on a running back. Our lines are in too poor shape for that. However, we should be able to find someone decent in the 3rd or 4th or maybe an affordable free agent.