Too much passing? not enough running?

Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by CowboysFaninDC, Oct 11, 2012.

  1. CowboysFaninDC

    CowboysFaninDC Well-Known Member

    3,952 Messages
    530 Likes Received
    totally agree. there is also nothing more demoralizing to an offense to try and grind it down, get 0 yards and negative yards in 3 attempts in a row and then have to punt. then come back. do it again and see the same thing happen.

    what you mention is true if in fact it can be done. we have not been able to do it.
  2. CopenhagenCowboy

    CopenhagenCowboy Well-Known Member

    1,205 Messages
    327 Likes Received
    I agree with this interpretation of the relevant stats.

    However, in theory, what you cannot win on the ground, you'll have to win through the air in order to move the chains. So a poor running game does have an effect - but yeah it's minimal.

    You'll have to run for almost no or even negative yards on average, before seeing a "more than minimal" effect.

    Of course you'd like to be able to control the clock through your running game. Also, adding some unpredictability to your playcalling and posing a threat has a little value. But as I see it, good pass protection ranks ahead of good run blocking. Good receiving targets ahead of good ball carriers. All of this should have a bearing on draft day priorities.

  3. Gaede

    Gaede Well-Known Member

    11,003 Messages
    3,865 Likes Received
    We don't need a great running game. We just one that isn't complete and utter garbage.

    All we need it for is to keep the defense honest.

    You see us going shotgun every play, you know how the game is going to end up.
  4. RS12

    RS12 Well-Known Member

    21,887 Messages
    9,335 Likes Received
    Bucky Brooks ‏@BuckyBrooks
    After studying the #Patriots and #49ers this week, I'm convinced the running gm remains an important part of a Super bowl blueprint in '12
    Expand Reply Retweet Favorite
  5. AdamJT13

    AdamJT13 Salary Cap Analyst

    16,228 Messages
    3,628 Likes Received
    No, it is not. There is very little correlation. If there was a direct correlation, it would show up in games, but it doesn't.

    There have been 15 games this season when a team completed at least 70 percent of its passes for at least 250 yards and at least three touchdowns. Nine of those 15 teams averaged less than 4.1 yards per carry in those games (the league average this season is 4.2), and seven averaged less than 3.8.

    There also have been 15 games this season when a team averaged at least 6.0 yards per rush. Only six of those 15 teams (40 percent) had passer ratings higher than 91.0 in those games, which is a little worse than the league average of 43.3 percent for teams that averaged less than 6.0 YPC. Five of those 15 teams (33.3 percent) had passer ratings of 72.2 or worse, which is again a little worse than the league average of only 27.7 percent for teams that averaged less than 6.0 YPC.

    Granted, these are small sample sizes so far this season, but the same things have held true year after year after year -- running the ball well doesn't mean that you will pass the ball well, and running it poorly doesn't mean that you will pass it poorly, and vice versa for passing helping the run. The effects of one on the other are minimal.

    By the way, those teams that had great games passing went 12-3. The 15 teams that had great games running went 7-8.

    First of all, about 46 percent of all first-and-10 plays are passes, so you're usually talking about only 10-12 first-and-10 runs per game to begin with. And it's a fallacy to think that "good" running games always gain 4 yards or more and "bad" running games always get stuffed for no gain. In reality, even the best running games pick up 2 yards or less on first-and-10 about one-third of the time. The difference between great running games and bad ones is a yard here and a yard there on most carries -- and a few more long runs to pump up that average per carry. So out of those 10-12 runs, even a great running game will end up in second-and-long four times. A terrible running game might end up in second-and-long six or seven times. So we're down to a difference of TWO OR THREE PLAYS PER GAME. But remember, that great running team isn't necessarily in second-and-short on those two or three plays, it's just in less than second-and-8 -- it might be second-and-6 instead, or second-and-5. So the great running team's "advantage" of avoiding second-and-long is not that much.

    No, teams do not pass 90 percent of the time in second-and-long. It's more like 60 percent of the time, unless a team is in the hurry-up offense or something.

    That's a nice theory, but like I said, the effects are minimal. If a terrible running game puts its offense in second-and-long two or three extra times per game, and teams pass 60 percent of the time on second-and-long, that's ONE OR TWO EXTRA PASSES PER GAME for which the defense can "play the pass" on second-and-long because of the lack of running success. And passing on second-and-long isn't much more difficult than passing in other second-down situations. Romo's career passer rating on second-and-8 or more is 95.0. His career rating on second-and-7 or less is 99.5. Again, the effect is minimal for those one or two extra plays per game.

    As I've shown, being able to run the ball doesn't make it easier to pass to any significant degree. The effect is minimal.
  6. Sampson

    Sampson Member

    114 Messages
    11 Likes Received
    That and not to mention we can take what he said and flip flop the pass and run and it will still sound good.

    If you pass the ball effectively, lets say you average 4 yards a pass on first down (not that it would happen on every 1st down), then being in 2nd and 6, you can pass it or you can run it. the defense has to respect the pass. that's when draws works best, freezes the LBs and safties and allows your running lanes to open.
  7. hutch1254

    hutch1254 Well-Known Member

    1,648 Messages
    403 Likes Received
    You said you win by passing more effectively than the other team. Romo is completing almost 67% of his passes. That's pretty high, however, where are we losing the effectiveness.

    I'm not calling you out, I'm just interested in your take on that. I think some of us, including myself, get caught up in the "when Tony Dorsett, Emmitt Smith, insert RB here, eclipses 100 yards a game the Cowboys are 24-4" type stat.
  8. Misanthrope

    Misanthrope New Member

    108 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    It's easy to say "run the ball more" but when you're averaging 2 yards per carry you'll find yourself in 3rd and long, time and again. That's not a recipe for success.
  9. Beast_from_East

    Beast_from_East Well-Known Member

    19,956 Messages
    9,296 Likes Received
    Then thats even worse.

    That means our passing game just sucks on its own, I wonder who the idiot is who designed it?

    I think it is that red headed guy, but that cant be. I was assured by many that he was a genius with a revolutionary offense that nobody in the league could stop.

    I wonder why we are one of the worst teams in the league in passing TDs then?
  10. AdamJT13

    AdamJT13 Salary Cap Analyst

    16,228 Messages
    3,628 Likes Received
    Mostly on interceptions and the lack of interceptions by our defense. We've thrown eight and intercepted only one.

    Teams that are already winning are able to run the ball more, so the running backs are able to surpass 100 yards more often. If the team is losing, the team has to pass more. It has more to do with having the luxury to run than it does being more successful at running or winning because the running back runs for 100 yards.

    It's almost like saying "Dallas is 13-0 since 2007 when Tony Romo takes a knee at least twice in the fourth quarter" (which is true). So, did we win those games because Romo took two knees? Or did he take two knees because we were winning? Yes, running for 100 yards might help win a game, but the key in the vast majority of games will still be whether you pass the ball more effectively than your opponent -- regardless of how well you run it or stop the run. And if you can do that, then you will have the opportunity to run the ball more often late in the game and give your back a chance to get to 100 yards.
  11. Hoofbite

    Hoofbite Well-Known Member

    35,102 Messages
    4,377 Likes Received
    Accuracy is only a component of effective passing. You cold throw dinkers all day and get a nice completion percentage. Hell, fans of opposing teams bash each other's QBs for it all the time.

    The reason effective passing correlates highly to winning is because effective passing correlates highly to points (usually) and that's what wins games.

    More effective passing generally means more points and the rest is kind of a given.
  12. Rack Bauer

    Rack Bauer Federal Agent

    22,920 Messages
    1,028 Likes Received
    Effective passing does not mean higher completion %, per se. It means exactly what it reads... "Effective passing game".

    That includes completion %, deep passing success, less int's, more tds, etc... just a better all around effective passing game.

    And IMO, we don't need to "run more" to win, but one thing that will HELP us win is to run more EFFECTIVELY. That means less runs for 0 or negative yards, better short yardage success, better goalline runs, etc...

    That would help our offense stay on the field which keeps our defense off the field.

    ALso, like Adam said, our defense needs to create more turnovers. Period. I don't care about a defense's rank as far as yards per game. I want a defense that makes the opposing QB uncomfortable and creates turnovers (and short fields for the offense). As it is now, I'm more uncomfortable watching our defense from my couch than opposing QBs are on the field.
  13. Hostile

    Hostile The Duke

    119,480 Messages
    4,208 Likes Received
    Good stuff Rackery.
  14. Rack Bauer

    Rack Bauer Federal Agent

    22,920 Messages
    1,028 Likes Received

  15. Hostile

    Hostile The Duke

    119,480 Messages
    4,208 Likes Received
    There's really no excuse for what we are seeing either. Run blocking is far more fundamental than pass blocking is. Grab, push, and maul. There's a lot less hand checking, shuffling, or pulling.

    Like I said, good stuff man.
  16. Frozen700

    Frozen700 Well-Known Member

    15,269 Messages
    2,751 Likes Received
    Our problem is running like we have a run game. Just cut it out....

    Pass to set up the run, like New England

Share This Page