Off-Season Priority #1: Find A Running Game

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by Beast_from_East

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

= not true.

Every team tries to run the ball "at least some." More running or better running does not make your passing more effective.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

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.

In games where the difference in the final score is?
3
3
6
1
5
7
5
5
2

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by xwalker

In games where the difference in the final score is?
3
3
6
1
5
7
5
5
2

Yes, teams run the ball more when they're ahead in close games and pass more when they're behind in close games. Also, the final score doesn't tell you how close the game was throughout the game.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Yes, teams run the ball more when they're ahead in close games and pass more when they're behind in close games. Also, the final score doesn't tell you how close the game was throughout the game.

Teams alter their offensive approach when they're ahead by 1 score?

Teams pass more when they're behind. If this is correct, then it should be expected that the pass attempts made while behind would be less efficient than the pass attempts made by the team that is ahead.

It appears that your opinions are:
A correlation between rush attempts and winning are an effect not a cause of winning (i.e. stats can be misleading).

A correlation between pass attempts and winning are a cause not an effect of winning. (i.e. stats are absolute).

[CowboyRoy]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

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

Cmon, give it a rest. No one is buying your ridiculous point, in case you havent noticed.

[CowboyRoy]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

= not true.

Every team tries to run the ball "at least some." More running or better running does not make your passing more effective.

Lets face it pal you simply dont get it. Its that simple.

[GimmeTheBall!]

I am convicted that we need an O-line before the running game is fixed.

There is nothing wrong with Murray (hail, even Felix) that a decent O line would not fix. Plus Tony needs the protection to help him not make bad and untimely throws.

[CowboyRoy]

Originally Posted by Idgit

Nice to have you back and fundamentally badly misunderstanding even the basics of what's being discussed in the thread.

Nice to see you following me around again like a lost puppy trying to bait me. Maybe you and your friend should read up a little on the basics of running the football and come on back to the conversation?

The basics of this thread is that improving the running game should be the #1 priority this offseason. But since your friend has lost every argument he has had, he has wittled his angle down to "running the ball effectively doesnt help the passing game" Bwaaaaa!!!

But hey, he has his little shadow to chase him around and tell him what a great job he is doing. What fun!!! LOL

[CowboyRoy]

Originally Posted by GimmeTheBall!

I am convicted that we need an O-line before the running game is fixed.

There is nothing wrong with Murray (hail, even Felix) that a decent O line would not fix. Plus Tony needs the protection to help him not make bad and untimely throws.

This whole conversation is a joke. What this offense needs is a better Oline. It will help both the passing game and the running game, which in turn will help the entire offense, Romo, and any OC that calls plays.

Despite what some may say on here, 2nd and 5 definitely helps the passing game and the QB more than 2nd and 9. Common sense. Football 101.

[CowboyRoy]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Scoring four rushing TDs instead of four passing TDs doesn't change the number of points you've scored.

What you are trying to do is just create more touchdowns out of nowhere, which is pointless. You could do that with passing TDs, special teams TDs and defensive TDs, too.





Four of the wins were by the Vikings. In one of those, they also rushed the ball worse but won because they returned one interception for a TD and another to the 5-yard line to set up a TD.



No, I've said there are some games when running better than your opponent might make a difference. But it is a small percentage of the time. If you look at the facts, you have about the same chance of winning whether you run better than your opponent or not. But whether you pass better than your opponent makes a HUGE difference in your chances of winning.







[View Full Quote] Again, you're trying to simply add or detract what happened instead of changing what happened. If the Skins had not run as well, they probably would have had to pass more -- and likely would have had more yards passing.





First of all, a single game -- or part of a game -- won't always follow the correlations. So finding an example of part of a game when the team with the lower ANYPA was leading doesn't prove anything -- there are plenty of them. The correlations are not based on a few games or parts of games, they're based on thousands of games over many years.

Secondly, the 49ers led at halftime partly because of a muffed punt that gave them the ball inside the 10. Take away that fumble, which had nothing to do with either running or passing, and the Packers probably would have been ahead at halftime, 21-17.

Finally, the entire game counts. If Rodgers had shredded the 49ers like Flacco shredded the Broncos on all of those attempts late in the game, he might have been able to rally them to victory. Instead, he averaged only 4.6 yards per attempt and ended two drives with incomplete passes. Meanwhile, Kaepernick went 4-for-4 for 91 yards (plus a defensive holding for a first down on another attempt), extending drives that led to touchdowns. Those differences turned a close game into a blowout.

LOL.........what turned the game into a blowout was the niners rushing for 300 yards. I guess your passing the ball is king theory just got blown out the water. Or should we say thin air? LOL

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by xwalker

Teams alter their offensive approach when they're ahead by 1 score?

Teams pass more when they're behind. If this is correct, then it should be expected that the pass attempts made while behind would be less efficient than the pass attempts made by the team that is ahead.

Pass attempts are not automatically less effective just because a team is behind. It is the ineffective pass attempts (or ineffective pass D) that causes the team to fall behind.

It appears that your opinions are:
A correlation between rush attempts and winning are an effect not a cause of winning (i.e. stats can be misleading).

A correlation between pass attempts and winning are a cause not an effect of winning. (i.e. stats are absolute).

Your first statement is correct, but your second is not. The number of attempts -- whether rushing or passing -- does not cause a team to win or lose, they are an effect of the game situation.

The EFFECTIVENESS of the pass attempts and pass defense is what causes a team to win, in most cases.

[CowboyRoy]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Yes, teams run the ball more when they're ahead in close games and pass more when they're behind in close games. Also, the final score doesn't tell you how close the game was throughout the game.

Wow, more genius insight.

[CowboyRoy]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Pass attempts are not automatically less effective just because a team is behind. It is the ineffective pass attempts (or ineffective pass D) that causes the team to fall behind.




Your first statement is correct, but your second is not. The number of attempts -- whether rushing or passing -- does not cause a team to win or lose, they are an effect of the game situation.

The EFFECTIVENESS of the pass attempts and pass defense is what causes a team to win, in most cases.

LOL.....passing is the only thing that matters. LOL

Defense, running the ball, turnovers, special teams, coaching, not much right? LOL

EFECTIVENESS? LOL

You are wrong, end of story.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's the age old conflict between tactics and strategy. When looking at overarching trends it's obvious you have to pas to win. OTOH when it's game day and a DE is charging upfield and getting to your QB causing your offense to be dysfunctional but running the ball a few times off that tackle gets you chunks of yards and slows the DE down.... neither are wrong.

I think they should try to control for more variables. For example eliminate games where the opposition doesn't generate a pass rush or against opponents that were poor pass rushers coming in. Tkae that and permute it with game situations. That's how you weed out things that are non-causal.

[JPostSam]

Originally Posted by CowboyRoy

LOL.....passing is the only thing that matters. LOL

Defense, running the ball, turnovers, special teams, coaching, not much right? LOL

EFECTIVENESS? LOL

You are wrong, end of story.

rushing for 100 yards on 30 carries is not as effective as rushing for 85 yards on 20 carries.

rushing for 4 yards on 3rd and 6 is not as effective as rushing for 2 yards on 3rd and 1.

is the concept of effectiveness starting to sink in now?