Off-Season Priority #1: Find A Running Game

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by Bigdog24

I see you point but I also think teams that WIN playoff games run the ball and are good at it.

The correlations are not different in the playoffs than they are in the regular season.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by xwalker

OK, if net yards per pass play correlate across the board, then a teams complete season should be a sufficient sample size to correlate.

In looking at the Cowboys 2012 season, I only see correlation at the extreme ends of the Net Yards Per Pass Play Difference.

If I compared the Net Yards Per Pass Play Difference between the Cowboys and their opponents for the 2012 season, I get the following:
(note: I refer to it as Net Passing Average)

I have no idea what you are doing in this post or where you came up with those numbers.

In Week 1, for example, we averaged 9.355 net yards per pass play, and the Giants averaged 5.343. Where did you get a difference of 1.56?

Here are the actual numbers for each game this season --

OPP 	DAL 	OPP 	NET
NYG 	9.355	5.343	4.012	W
SEA	6.024	6.045	-0.021	L
TB	6.023	3.033	2.990	W
CHI 	7.204	10.269	-3.065	L
BAL 	6.865	8.519	-1.654	L
CAR 	6.676	5.538	1.138	W
NYG	6.288	6.333	-0.045	L
ATL 	8.667	8.919	-0.252	L
PHI 	6.655	6.465	0.190	W
CLE 	4.509	5.189	-0.680	W -x
WAS 	6.609	9.600	-2.991	L
PHI 	10.138	6.857	3.281	W
CIN 	5.196	5.000	0.196	W
PIT 	7.628	7.250	0.378	W
NOR	9.022	8.415	0.607	L -x
WAS 	5.026	4.579	0.447	L -x

As you can see, even without any penalty for interceptions, the team with the higher ANYPA went 13-3. Two of the losses were in overtime, and the other was the final game, when we threw three more interceptions than the Redskins.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by xwalker

I get a better correlation looking at the Cowboys rushing attempts per game.

If you look at total attempts, you're simply mistaking cause and effect. Teams that are already winning run the ball late in the game. Teams that are already losing pass the ball more late in the game. Teams run BECAUSE they are winning, not the other way around.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by CowboyRoy

He thinks every team should pass on every down, because its a passing league.

I've absolutely never said anything close to that. You need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

If you look at total attempts, you're simply mistaking cause and effect. Teams that are already winning run the ball late in the game. Teams that are already losing pass the ball more late in the game. Teams run BECAUSE they are winning, not the other way around.

No, the Cowboys were within 1 TD in all but 1 of their Wins.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by xwalker

No, the Cowboys were within 1 TD in all but 1 of their Wins.

What does that have to do with what I said?

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

I have no idea what you are doing in this post or where you came up with those numbers.

In Week 1, for example, we averaged 9.355 net yards per pass play, and the Giants averaged 5.343. Where did you get a difference of 1.56?

OK, this looks better. I was a column off on the formula.

Now the correlation is similar to the Rush Attempts correlation.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by xwalker

Now the correlation is similar to the Rush Attempts correlation.

As I said, rush attempts "correlate" with wins because teams run when they're already ahead. When teams are behind, they try to pass to catch up. Teams run more BECAUSE they're winning, they don't win because they're running more.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

That's the same thing you just posted, and the numbers are wrong.




As I said, rush attempts "correlate" with wins because teams run when they're already ahead. When teams are behind, they try to pass to catch up. Teams run more BECAUSE they're winning, they don't win because they're running more.

Correlation doesn't imply causation either way. I could just as easily argue that if you do not at least run some in the first half when most every game is still contested it is going to be more difficult to get your overall rush attempts to the point where it correlates well. Running the ball does reduce the number of plays overall. Getting 20 carries in the 4th quarter up two scores or the like is pretty difficult.

Looking at it by quarter may shed some light on this.

Do you happen to have a graph of rushing attempts versus winning %? The reason why I ask is I am wondering if it looks somewhat continuous or if there is some sort of step.

[TwoDeep3]

All these stats are soooooo interesting, but for this team, Tony Romo needs to have a running game that is successful in the first half, which will make him more effective.

His problem is being behind and doing too much when having to play catch up.

Shorten the game with an effective run game and the Oh Damn It Tony plays will be fewer and father between.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Correlation doesn't imply causation either way. I could just as easily argue that if you do not at least run some in the first half when most every game is still contested it is going to be more difficult to get your overall rush attempts to the point where it correlates well.

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.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

All these stats are soooooo interesting, but for this team, Tony Romo needs to have a running game that is successful in the first half, which will make him more effective.

Except that it *doesn't* make him more effective. That's the point.

[Beast_from_East]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Except that it *doesn't* make him more effective. That's the point.

I think what he is trying to say is tha if you at least try to run the ball some, it keeps the defense honest which will allow for more efficient passsing.

If the defense knows you cant run, they are just going to drop everybody back and play the pass. This makes passing harder since there is more coverage, thus your passing is less efficient.


Cant or wont run = defense playing pass = harder to pass = less efficient = loss

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So then rushing attempts per down in the first three quarters are irrelevant assuming the same number of plays. I get what you are saying.

Does seem a bit of apples to oranges when comparing it to raw attempts but compelling nonetheless. Good stuff thanks.

[wick]

Why do people cling so fervently to theories when the facts debunk them? I understand that seemingly every NFL guy says that you have to run the ball well and stop the run to win and that it would seem to make some sense logically, but if you look at what has actually happened over thousands and thousands of NFL games and find that no, it really doesn't matter how well you run the ball or stop the run, why do so many continue to insist that it does? To do this is to argue against reality.