Off-Season Priority #1: Find A Running Game

[phildominator]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Here are our game-by-game ANYPA numbers for offense and defense --

Opp.	Offense		Defense		Net	
NYG	7.194		4.600		2.594	W
SEA	4.707		5.227		-0.520	L
TB	4.302		0.733		3.569	W
CHI	2.444		9.962		-7.518	L
BAL	5.324		8.370		-3.046	L
CAR	6.676		3.821		2.855	W
NYG	2.924		4.600		-1.676	L
ATL	8.417		8.595		-0.178	L
PHI	6.103		5.047		1.056	W
CLE	3.526		4.703		-1.177	W
WAS	4.766		7.400		-2.634	L
PHI	9.828		6.543		3.285	W
CIN	3.478		3.263		0.215	W
PIT	7.326		5.659		1.667	W
NO	8.800		8.415		0.385	L
WAS	1.179		4.579		-3.400	L

Avg.	5.437		5.720

Do you have the stats for the 8 division winners?

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by xwalker

What is your equation?

I already posted it in this thread --

(Net passing yards - (50*INT)) / (Attempts + Sacks)

Are these your definitions of those terms?

unadjusted yards per pass play = (total passing yards) / attempts

Either yards per pass or net yards per pass play (subtract sack yardage from total yards and add sacks to attempt) also correlate highly. They don't take interceptions into account, though.

pass success rate = completions / attempts

No, that's completion percentage. Success rate is the percentage of plays that are deemed "successful" based on the down and distance. There are various sites that track success rates by their own definitions.

My equation was intended to be silly to make a point. The point being that you can manipulate equations to get a desired result.

And what's the point of that?

ANYPA is defined as passing efficiency by a group of people. Stating that it is an absolute measure of passing efficiency is misleading.

Nobody ever said it's the only measure of passing efficiency.

The point of my equation is that randomly defined equations can be wrong even if they correlate to a set of data.

So are you saying that ANYPA does not measure passing efficiency?

[wick]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

I already posted it in this thread --

(Net passing yards - (50*INT)) / (Attempts + Sacks)

What are your thoughts on including quarterback fumbles and/or receiver fumbles as part of that equation?

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by xwalker

A great set of data to analyze would be from all the games where neither team throws an interception.

Does passing yards or passing average or some other simple stat correlate to winning in those games?

Net yards per pass play is the same as ANYPA when neither team throws an interception. There were 42 games this season when neither team threw an interception. The team that averaged more net yards per pass play went 29-12-1 (a .702 winning percentage).

Interestingly, games were at least 2.9 times more likely to go into overtime this season when neither team threw an interception. Out of those 42 games above, eight went into overtime. Out of the other 214 games this season, only 14 went into overtime. (It's possible that in several of those, there were no interceptions thrown until overtime, which would make it even more than 2.9 times as likely. Our win over Pittsburgh was one example of that -- the first interception of the game was Carr's in overtime.) In non-overtime games with no interceptions, the team with the higher NYPA went 26-8 (.765). In overtime games, the team with the higher NYPA for the entire game went 3-4-1, but the team with the higher NYPA *in overtime* went 5-2-1.

That is not my impression of what you have been saying up to this point.

Then you haven't paid close attention to what I've said for years.

I think most people would agree that the passing game in football has more importance than the running game in the modern era.

I think people could believe:

importance of passing / importance of running = 60/40

I don't think anyone is going to believe:

importance of passing / importance of running = 99/1

First of all, your use of "passing" and "running" is quite general. I've been very specific -- that how well you run the ball or stop the run, as measured by yards per carry, has almost no effect on winning and losing in the NFL. If you're averaging 3.0 yards per carry, you're getting virtually the same "benefit" from the running game that you would be getting if you were averaging 5.0 YPC. It's hard for some people to believe, but it is true.

And, if you don't pass the ball better than your opponent, then running it better than your opponent has almost no effect on your chances of winning the game. If you pass it worse than your opponent, running it better still has almost no effect on your chances of winning.

So, whatever percentages you want to come up with for the importance of each is fine with me, but it doesn't change the facts about what wins games in the NFL.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

When you can do both very well you take the predictablity out of the offense. For some teams that running game means a lot more than to other teams it is part of who they are as an offense and means a lot in terms of their winning and losing. Stats are great but watch the games and the importance some coaches place on their ability to run.

"Placing importance" on running doesn't change whether running it well or poorly affects the outcome of the game. Lots of teams run the ball a lot, and lots of teams pass it a lot. For both types of teams, running it well or poorly hardly affects their chances of winning. If they pass better than their opponents, they almost always win. When they don't, they almost always lose.

For example, the team that passed more effectively went 14-2 in the Redskins' games, while the team that ran more effectively went 9-7. The team that passed more effectively in the Seahawks' games went 14-2, while the team that passed more effectively went 9-7. "Placing importance" on the running game doesn't change the correlation.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

We get it -- it doesn't matter how you score. None of those situations has anything to do with the one I described.

If you go 10-of-18 instead of 6-of-18, those were necessarily four more (different) drives that you scored on.

Four touchdowns that you otherwise would not have had, unless for some reason you want to say that all 4 would have been passing TD.

Those aren't all on different drives, you know. If you run it four times from the 1 and finally score on fourth down, you scored just as many TDs on that possession by going 1-for-4 as you would have if you had scored on first down (1-for-1).

We ran the ball 18 times on 15 different possessions inside the opponent's 10-yard line. We scored touchdowns on 10 of those possessions. Another was Romo's kneel-down after Carr's interception against Pittsburgh, putting the ball in the middle of the field for Bailey's winning field goal.

That leaves four possessions all season when we ran the ball inside the opponent's 10 and failed to score a touchdown. One of those was Murray's fumble against the Steelers. On each of the other three, we ran the ball one time inside the 10 from no closer than the 6-yard line -- a third down from the 6 against Tampa Bay, a second down from the 9 against Carolina and a second down from the 6 against Atlanta. Do you know how often runs from the opponent's 6-9 yard line go for touchdowns? About 12 percent of the time. Adrian Peterson had seven carries from there and did not score. Marshawn Lynch had seven carries from there and did not score. Frank Gore had five carries from there and did not score. We had a total of six and did not score (although two of them were followed by TD passes), and *that* is what you say our big problem was this season?

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by phildominator

Do you have the stats for the 8 division winners?

I do; it will just take me a little while to put them into this type of chart format.

[Zordon]

My goodness Adam, who are you?

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by wick

What are your thoughts on including quarterback fumbles and/or receiver fumbles as part of that equation?

I'm all for making stats more accurately reflect what happens -- factor in lost fumbles on runs or passes, take out spikes and kneel-downs, include certain penalties, etc. It's just difficult to get the information for every game.

[JustDezIt]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Those aren't all on different drives, you know. If you run it four times from the 1 and finally score on fourth down, you scored just as many TDs on that possession by going 1-for-4 as you would have if you had scored on first down (1-for-1).

We ran the ball 18 times on 15 different possessions inside the opponent's 10-yard line. We scored touchdowns on 10 of those possessions. Another was Romo's kneel-down after Carr's interception against Pittsburgh, putting the ball in the middle of the field for Bailey's winning field goal.

[View Full Quote] That leaves four possessions all season when we ran the ball inside the opponent's 10 and failed to score a touchdown. One of those was Murray's fumble against the Steelers. On each of the other three, we ran the ball one time inside the 10 from no closer than the 6-yard line -- a third down from the 6 against Tampa Bay, a second down from the 9 against Carolina and a second down from the 6 against Atlanta. Do you know how often runs from the opponent's 6-9 yard line go for touchdowns? About 12 percent of the time. Adrian Peterson had seven carries from there and did not score. Marshawn Lynch had seven carries from there and did not score. Frank Gore had five carries from there and did not score. We had a total of six and did not score (although two of them were followed by TD passes), and *that* is what you say our big problem was this season?

ether

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by phildominator

Do you have the stats for the 8 division winners?

I almost forgot about these, but here are the game-by-game ANYPA numbers for all eight of the division champions. I included each team's record and the record of the team that had the higher ANYPA in each of their games. The games when the team with the higher ANYPA did not win are marked with an "-x" after the W or L.

ATLANTA (13-3 / team with higher ANYPA went 13-3)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L
KAN 		9.125		3.917		5.208		W
DEN 		5.622		1.700		3.922		W
SDG 		5.119		1.641		3.478		W
CAR 		5.426		7.321		-1.896		W -x
WAS 		5.434		3.222		2.212		W
OAK 		2.395		7.639		-5.244		W -x
PHI		7.935		4.684		3.251		W
DAL 		8.920		8.667		0.252		W
NOR 		6.755		7.333		-0.579		L
ARI 		0.979		1.367		-0.388		W -x
TAM 		8.939		8.364		0.576		W
NOR 		4.676		1.667		3.010		W
CAR 		5.431		7.778		-2.346		L
NYG 		9.138		2.269		6.869		W
DET 		8.212		7.018		1.194		W
TAM 		4.630		4.914		-0.284		L

BALTIMORE (10-6 / team with higher ANYPA went 16-0)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L
CIN 		8.800		3.488		5.312		W
PHI 		3.727		7.559		-3.832		L
NWE 		8.513		7.419		1.094		W
CLE 		5.740		4.981		0.759		W
KAN 		3.710		1.333		2.376		W
DAL 		8.519		5.514		3.005		W
HOU 		0.447		6.128		-5.681		L
CLE 		5.800		1.947		3.853		W
OAK 		8.560		6.122		2.436		W
PIT 		4.500		2.976		1.524		W
SDG 		5.643		4.500		1.143		W
PIT 		3.432		4.359		-0.927		L
WAS 		5.348		7.871		-2.523		L
DEN 		4.000		6.233		-2.233		L
NYG 		8.583		3.839		4.745		W
CIN 		2.595		5.071		-2.477		L

DENVER (13-3 / team with higher ANYPA went 14-2)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L		
PIT 		8.571		3.533		5.038		W
ATL 		1.700		5.622		-3.922		L
HOU 		5.745		7.548		-1.803		L
OAK 		8.667		4.892		3.775		W
NWE 		7.043		5.514		1.529		L -x
SDG 		8.633		0.378		8.256		W
NOR		10.167		3.512		6.655		W
CIN 		5.460		4.787		0.670		W
CAR 		7.560		2.279		5.285		W
SDG 		4.511		2.818		1.693		W
KAN 		5.718		2.357		3.361		W
TAM 		5.053		4.625		0.428		W
OAK 		6.103		6.871		-0.768		W -x
BAL 		6.233		4.000		2.233		W
CLE 		6.721		3.381		3.340		W
KAN 		9.576		1.300		8.276		W

GREEN BAY (11-5 / team with higher ANYPA went 14-2)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L						
SFO 		4.872		6.367		-1.494		L
CHI 		4.342		-3.706		8.048		W
SEA 		3.915		5.045		-1.131		L
NOR 		6.561		7.661		-1.100		W -x
IND 		4.243		5.000		-0.757		L
HOU 		8.410		1.976		6.435		W
STL 		8.300		5.297		3.003		W
JAX		4.526		5.471		-0.944		W -x
ARI 		5.100		4.917		0.180		W
DET 		5.633		3.455		2.179		W
NYG 		4.719		7.839		-3.120		L
MIN 		6.297		0.760		5.537		W
DET 		5.481		4.370		1.112		W
CHI 		7.128		2.280		4.848		W
TEN 		8.366		0.027		8.339		W
MIN 		7.400		7.828		-0.428		L

HOUSTON (12-4 / team with higher ANYPA went 13-3)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L						
MIA 		7.697		1.179		6.517		W
JAX 		5.571		2.167		3.405		W
DEN 		7.548		5.745		1.803		W
TEN 		7.214		2.161		5.053		W
NYJ 		5.679		3.343		2.336		W
GNB 		1.976		8.410		-6.435		L
BAL 		6.128		0.447		5.681		W
BUF 		8.830		5.610		3.218		W
CHI 		-0.444		1.030		-1.475		W -x
JAX 		7.088		10.054		-2.966		W -x
DET 		4.920		6.547		-1.627		W -x
TEN 		5.914		2.255		3.659		W
NWE 		4.553		6.459		-1.907		L
IND 		7.029		4.625		2.404		W
MIN 		4.135		5.516		-1.381		L
IND 		3.750		6.345		-2.595		L

NEW ENGLAND (12-4 / team with higher ANYPA went 11-5)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L						
TEN 		7.125		4.756		2.369		W
ARI 		4.940		4.828		0.112		L -x
BAL 		7.419		8.513		-1.094		L
BUF 		9.000		3.333		5.667		W
DEN 		5.514		7.043		-1.529		W -x
SEA 		4.881		9.759		-4.877		L
NYJ 		5.814		5.489		0.325		W
STL		8.447		3.500		4.947		W
BUF 		5.897		6.256		-0.358		W -x
IND 		9.457		3.510		5.947		W
NYJ 		11.963		6.211		5.752		W
MIA 		3.705		5.500		-1.795		W -x
HOU 		6.459		4.553		1.907		W
SFO 		4.779		5.885		-1.105		L
JAX 		3.318		3.712		-0.393		W -x
MIA 		7.459		3.786		3.674		W

SAN FRANCISCO (11-4-1 / team with higher ANYPA went 14-1-1)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L						
GNB 		6.367		4.872		1.494		W
DET 		5.912		4.824		1.088		W
MIN 		3.711		5.657		-1.947		L
NYJ 		5.583		1.515		4.068		W
BUF 		12.400		2.407		9.993		W
NYG 		1.953		6.893		-4.939		L
SEA 		3.520		2.600		0.920		W
ARI		8.870		3.714		5.155		W
STL 		5.267		6.953		-1.687		TIE
CHI 		9.280		-1.500		10.780		W
NOR 		7.240		2.848		4.392		W
STL 		5.457		5.073		0.384		L -x
MIA 		6.148		3.800		2.348		W
NWE 		5.885		4.779		1.105		W
SEA 		4.892		5.217		-0.325		L
ARI 		9.267		4.361		4.906		W

WASHINGTON (10-6 / team with higher ANYPA went 14-2)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L						
NOR 		10.929		4.185		6.743		W
STL 		4.900		6.784		-1.884		L
CIN 		4.590		11.167		-6.577		L
TAM 		8.917		6.075		2.842		W
ATL 		3.222		5.434		-2.212		L
MIN 		5.565		4.054		1.512		W
NYG 		5.871		5.585		0.286		L -x
PIT		4.694		6.324		-1.629		L
CAR 		4.326		8.740		-4.414		L
PHI 		11.294		1.540		9.754		W
DAL 		7.933		5.047		2.886		W
NYG 		7.762		8.029		-0.268		W -x
BAL 		7.871		5.348		2.523		W
CLE 		6.615		3.595		3.021		W
PHI 		5.400		5.113		0.287		W
DAL 		4.579		1.179		3.399		W

In those teams' 128 games, the team with the higher ANYPA went 109-18-1, a winning percentage of .855. They went 78-4 (.951) when they had the higher ANYPA and 14-31-1 (.315) when they had the lower ANYPA.

[cowboysooner]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

I almost forgot about these, but here are the game-by-game ANYPA numbers for all eight of the division champions. I included each team's record and the record of the team that had the higher ANYPA in each of their games. The games when the team with the higher ANYPA did not win are marked with an "-x" after the W or L.

ATLANTA (13-3 / team with higher ANYPA went 13-3)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L
KAN 		9.125		3.917		5.208		W
DEN 		5.622		1.700		3.922		W
SDG 		5.119		1.641		3.478		W
CAR 		5.426		7.321		-1.896		W -x
WAS 		5.434		3.222		2.212		W
OAK 		2.395		7.639		-5.244		W -x
PHI		7.935		4.684		3.251		W
DAL 		8.920		8.667		0.252		W
NOR 		6.755		7.333		-0.579		L [View Full Quote]ARI 		0.979		1.367		-0.388		W -x
TAM 		8.939		8.364		0.576		W
NOR 		4.676		1.667		3.010		W
CAR 		5.431		7.778		-2.346		L
NYG 		9.138		2.269		6.869		W
DET 		8.212		7.018		1.194		W
TAM 		4.630		4.914		-0.284		L

BALTIMORE (10-6 / team with higher ANYPA went 16-0)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L
CIN 		8.800		3.488		5.312		W
PHI 		3.727		7.559		-3.832		L
NWE 		8.513		7.419		1.094		W
CLE 		5.740		4.981		0.759		W
KAN 		3.710		1.333		2.376		W
DAL 		8.519		5.514		3.005		W
HOU 		0.447		6.128		-5.681		L
CLE 		5.800		1.947		3.853		W
OAK 		8.560		6.122		2.436		W
PIT 		4.500		2.976		1.524		W
SDG 		5.643		4.500		1.143		W
PIT 		3.432		4.359		-0.927		L
WAS 		5.348		7.871		-2.523		L
DEN 		4.000		6.233		-2.233		L
NYG 		8.583		3.839		4.745		W
CIN 		2.595		5.071		-2.477		L

DENVER (13-3 / team with higher ANYPA went 14-2)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L		
PIT 		8.571		3.533		5.038		W
ATL 		1.700		5.622		-3.922		L
HOU 		5.745		7.548		-1.803		L
OAK 		8.667		4.892		3.775		W
NWE 		7.043		5.514		1.529		L -x
SDG 		8.633		0.378		8.256		W
NOR		10.167		3.512		6.655		W
CIN 		5.460		4.787		0.670		W
CAR 		7.560		2.279		5.285		W
SDG 		4.511		2.818		1.693		W
KAN 		5.718		2.357		3.361		W
TAM 		5.053		4.625		0.428		W
OAK 		6.103		6.871		-0.768		W -x
BAL 		6.233		4.000		2.233		W
CLE 		6.721		3.381		3.340		W
KAN 		9.576		1.300		8.276		W

GREEN BAY (11-5 / team with higher ANYPA went 14-2)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L						
SFO 		4.872		6.367		-1.494		L
CHI 		4.342		-3.706		8.048		W
SEA 		3.915		5.045		-1.131		L
NOR 		6.561		7.661		-1.100		W -x
IND 		4.243		5.000		-0.757		L
HOU 		8.410		1.976		6.435		W
STL 		8.300		5.297		3.003		W
JAX		4.526		5.471		-0.944		W -x
ARI 		5.100		4.917		0.180		W
DET 		5.633		3.455		2.179		W
NYG 		4.719		7.839		-3.120		L
MIN 		6.297		0.760		5.537		W
DET 		5.481		4.370		1.112		W
CHI 		7.128		2.280		4.848		W
TEN 		8.366		0.027		8.339		W
MIN 		7.400		7.828		-0.428		L

HOUSTON (12-4 / team with higher ANYPA went 13-3)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L						
MIA 		7.697		1.179		6.517		W
JAX 		5.571		2.167		3.405		W
DEN 		7.548		5.745		1.803		W
TEN 		7.214		2.161		5.053		W
NYJ 		5.679		3.343		2.336		W
GNB 		1.976		8.410		-6.435		L
BAL 		6.128		0.447		5.681		W
BUF 		8.830		5.610		3.218		W
CHI 		-0.444		1.030		-1.475		W -x
JAX 		7.088		10.054		-2.966		W -x
DET 		4.920		6.547		-1.627		W -x
TEN 		5.914		2.255		3.659		W
NWE 		4.553		6.459		-1.907		L
IND 		7.029		4.625		2.404		W
MIN 		4.135		5.516		-1.381		L
IND 		3.750		6.345		-2.595		L

NEW ENGLAND (12-4 / team with higher ANYPA went 11-5)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L						
TEN 		7.125		4.756		2.369		W
ARI 		4.940		4.828		0.112		L -x
BAL 		7.419		8.513		-1.094		L
BUF 		9.000		3.333		5.667		W
DEN 		5.514		7.043		-1.529		W -x
SEA 		4.881		9.759		-4.877		L
NYJ 		5.814		5.489		0.325		W
STL		8.447		3.500		4.947		W
BUF 		5.897		6.256		-0.358		W -x
IND 		9.457		3.510		5.947		W
NYJ 		11.963		6.211		5.752		W
MIA 		3.705		5.500		-1.795		W -x
HOU 		6.459		4.553		1.907		W
SFO 		4.779		5.885		-1.105		L
JAX 		3.318		3.712		-0.393		W -x
MIA 		7.459		3.786		3.674		W

SAN FRANCISCO (11-4-1 / team with higher ANYPA went 14-1-1)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L						
GNB 		6.367		4.872		1.494		W
DET 		5.912		4.824		1.088		W
MIN 		3.711		5.657		-1.947		L
NYJ 		5.583		1.515		4.068		W
BUF 		12.400		2.407		9.993		W
NYG 		1.953		6.893		-4.939		L
SEA 		3.520		2.600		0.920		W
ARI		8.870		3.714		5.155		W
STL 		5.267		6.953		-1.687		TIE
CHI 		9.280		-1.500		10.780		W
NOR 		7.240		2.848		4.392		W
STL 		5.457		5.073		0.384		L -x
MIA 		6.148		3.800		2.348		W
NWE 		5.885		4.779		1.105		W
SEA 		4.892		5.217		-0.325		L
ARI 		9.267		4.361		4.906		W

WASHINGTON (10-6 / team with higher ANYPA went 14-2)
Opp.		Offense		Defense		Net		W/L						
NOR 		10.929		4.185		6.743		W
STL 		4.900		6.784		-1.884		L
CIN 		4.590		11.167		-6.577		L
TAM 		8.917		6.075		2.842		W
ATL 		3.222		5.434		-2.212		L
MIN 		5.565		4.054		1.512		W
NYG 		5.871		5.585		0.286		L -x
PIT		4.694		6.324		-1.629		L
CAR 		4.326		8.740		-4.414		L
PHI 		11.294		1.540		9.754		W
DAL 		7.933		5.047		2.886		W
NYG 		7.762		8.029		-0.268		W -x
BAL 		7.871		5.348		2.523		W
CLE 		6.615		3.595		3.021		W
PHI 		5.400		5.113		0.287		W
DAL 		4.579		1.179		3.399		W

In those teams' 128 games, the team with the higher ANYPA went 109-18-1, a winning percentage of .855. They went 78-4 (.951) when they had the higher ANYPA and 14-31-1 (.315) when they had the lower ANYPA.

So given this data and this team strengths and weaknesses would you advocate drafting an improved receiver a right tackle a safety and a defensive end? There is not much variance in centers and guards on pressures allowed so that is not going to fundamentally change your passing attack where a tavon Austin or Paterson from Tennessee can really change the ypa on targets to them.

I think we are far closer to being a high anypa team from a Green Bay type model than from a Seattle or San Fran one that runs and runs and then surprises with a big play action pass.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Those aren't all on different drives, you know.

Since there's no way to score two TD on one drive, every additional TD has to come from a different drive.

Every drive on which we ran and did not end up scoring a TD -- especially from the red zone, and even more so from inside the 10 -- is an example of how running the ball better could have helped us. No one can logically deny this.

Is 6-of-18 from inside the 10 anywhere near the top of the league? Of course not.

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

*that* is what you say our big problem was this season?

I'm not saying anything close to that. What I actually said was that, while we could stand to be more productive running the ball, we also need to pass much better than the opponent, but the whole team gets better overall if we make it a high priority to improve both the defense and the running game.

What I said to *you* was that you're exaggerating when you say that improving the running game shouldn't even be among our top 10 priorities. That you're exaggerating when you say "how well you run the ball doesn't matter." To believe that, you must believe that there is no such thing as a "game manager" QB, since no QB benefits from how well his team runs the ball. That Manning and Griffin are interchangeable parts.

You know where we ranked in FG attempts from inside 40 yards, per drive. You know where we ranked in TD per red zone possession. Based on win correlations, you're saying that running the ball better could *not* help to improve either one of these rankings. That's a mistake. Scoring more touchdowns improves both those rankings, and run TD are just as good as pass TD.

[706Cowboysfan1]

Originally Posted by miamicowboy21

This draft is full of offensive lineman and defensive lineman. 80 percent of our draft must be devoted to both sides of the line thats where these games are won.

I agree 100% we lost all those games last year in the trenches. We must upgrade at the point of attack if we hope to be competative.

[Hoov]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

First of all, your use of "passing" and "running" is quite general. I've been very specific -- that how well you run the ball or stop the run, as measured by yards per carry, has almost no effect on winning and losing in the NFL. If you're averaging 3.0 yards per carry, you're getting virtually the same "benefit" from the running game that you would be getting if you were averaging 5.0 YPC. It's hard for some people to believe, but it is true.

When you first read that statement it is hard to believe. At first glance it would seem as if you could be saying running well is not important at all - the key is that you are saying that running the ball better than the other team is not the factor that will cause you to win or lose more games in the NFL.

So after reading what you have been saying about passing efficiency and taking the time to think about it - you can actually see this played out in the games.

The Houston - Bengals playoff game from last week is a great example.

Houston was killing the bengals defense with the run, they were just taking it to them but Shaub was playing pretty poorly and they only has 6 points from 2 FG's, the Shaub throws the pick 6 and even though Houston run game was about as good as any team could hope for they were down 7-6 because their pass game was awful.

Now, Houston did win the game. But in the 2nd half Shaub did play better and the Cincinatti passing game was horrific, so houston won in the end because their passing efficiency was better than the bengals.

But to someone who watched the game without even looking at passing efficiency, it may appear that Houston won because they were the bettter running team - which they were....

But when you decide to accept that there may be some truth to this passing efficiency as being able to determine the final outcome of a game you watch the game a little differently, focus on different things.

Just looking at the 1st half and the texans being down 7-6 at one point after utterly dominating the opponent with the run - you can see that passing efficiency can easily overcome losing the battle of running the ball, but running well cannot usually overcome losing the battle of passing efficiency.