Scott Linehan & The Running Game

[xwalker]

It's not. Throwing effectively and defending the pass effectively is what wins. Those things have very little to do with running the ball effectively. You do need to pass protect, though, and pressure the passer, so we can agree on that at least.

Be careful believing the passing correlation theories.

Those concepts are based on a very simplistic single variable statistical analysis.

Winning a football game is a complex multivariate statistical analysis.

Example:
You could probably show simple correlation between blow-out wins and high rushing attempts in the 4th quarter.

Using simplistic correlation you could conclude that the high rushing attempts were responsible for blow-out wins. In reality, we know that teams tend to rush more late in games when they have a big lead.

The problem as shown in the example is determining cause vs effect. The high number of rushing attempts was caused by the blow-out win. The high rushing attempts didn't cause the blow-out win.

The correlation of passing effectiveness does indicate that teams don't win on average if they lose the passing effectiveness battle; however, it does not prove anything about the effect of the running game.

The fact that rushing statistics don't "correlate" is not proof of the importance or lack of importance of the running game. It more likely shows that they are not able to track the relevant statistics. The statistic of how often a defense plays 8 men in the box vs 7 men in the box is not commonly available; however, it would be very important in determining the effect on the passing game of having a rushing threat. If the defense plays 8 in the box, the rushing statistics will suffer and the passing statistics will flourish.

There are other issues that would be very difficult to quantify with statistics. It's well known that defenses go to an all out pass rush on 3rd and long; whereas, at other points in the game they may play a read-and-react style. If there was not threat of a run, they would always go with an all out pass rush.

It was fairly easy to see that college pass rushers often played conservatively against running QBs like Manziel. In reviewing DEs for the draft, many of them played a completely different game against Manziel than they would against a guy like McCarron. It would be really difficult to correlate this to statistics. Manziel might not have had big statistics running in some games but he nonetheless affected how the the defense played against him.

 

[Idgit]

Be careful believing the passing correlation theories.

Those concepts are based on a very simplistic single variable statistical analysis.

Winning a football game is a complex multivariate statistical analysis.

Example:
You could probably show simple correlation between blow-out wins and high rushing attempts in the 4th quarter.

Using simplistic correlation you could conclude that the high rushing attempts were responsible for blow-out wins. In reality, we know that teams tend to rush more late in games when they have a big lead.

The problem as shown in the example is determining cause vs effect. The high number of rushing attempts was caused by the blow-out win. The high rushing attempts didn't cause the blow-out win.

The correlation of passing effectiveness does indicate that teams don't win on average if they lose the passing effectiveness battle; however, it does not prove anything about the effect of the running game.

The fact that rushing statistics don't "correlate" is not proof of the importance or lack of importance of the running game. It more likely shows that they are not able to track the relevant statistics. The statistic of how often a defense plays 8 men in the box vs 7 men in the box is not commonly available; however, it would be very important in determining the effect on the passing game of having a rushing threat. If the defense plays 8 in the box, the rushing statistics will suffer and the passing statistics will flourish.

There are other issues that would be very difficult to quantify with statistics. It's well known that defenses go to an all out pass rush on 3rd and long; whereas, at other points in the game they may play a read-and-react style. If there was not threat of a run, they would always go with an all out pass rush.

It was fairly easy to see that college pass rushers often played conservatively against running QBs like Manziel. In reviewing DEs for the draft, many of them played a completely different game against Manziel than they would against a guy like McCarron. It would be really difficult to correlate this to statistics. Manziel might not have had big statistics running in some games but he nonetheless affected how the the defense played against him.

This has been discussed in some detail many times. This issue isn't that the running game isn't important. The issue is that, statistically speaking, running it more effectively than the other guy doesn't appear to make you more likely to win games. It doesn't follow from that that you don't need to run the ball.

I'm not sure I understand how your interpreting the winning effectiveness correlations as single variable analyses, but, whatever the method, if we happen to unpack the data in a way that indicates running a football effectively makes us more likely to win a football game, then I'll happily change my position. Until then, though, I'm going to stick with what we can measure consistently, and trust the fact that NFL teams seem to be coming to the same conclusions insofar as how they setup their draft boards to mean that there's probably something to the correlation data, after all.

 

[Alexander]

Not for the faint at heart.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/24/situational-play-calling/

"If we’ve learned anything about the Cowboys under coach Jason Garrett, it’s that they like to pass the ball…a lot. No team preferred the pass more than Dallas last season. The Cowboys ended up as the league’ No. 4 pass-heaviest offense despite holding a lead on 45 percent of their offensive snaps – sixth-highest in the league. Only Cleveland called pass more often when playing with the lead. New offensive coordinator Scott Linehan operated the league’s pass-heaviest offense during his time in Detroit"

A reversal in this alone would mean great things for this offense and the team in general.

That is on Garrett. Not the offensive coordinator of the moment. He needs to back up his talk about believing in the run and install that as a critical part of the team's culture and identity.

Maybe now he can actually trust his offensive line as there is more talent allocated to it.

I truly hope that lack of trust was what the issue was last season, even if it was evident he should have. If not, get used to mediocrity.

 

[xwalker]

This has been discussed in some detail many times. This issue isn't that the running game isn't important. The issue is that, statistically speaking, running it more effectively than the other guy doesn't appear to make you more likely to win games. It doesn't follow from that that you don't need to run the ball.

I'm not sure I understand how your interpreting the winning effectiveness correlations as single variable analyses, but, whatever the method, if we happen to unpack the data in a way that indicates running a football effectively makes us more likely to win a football game, then I'll happily change my position. Until then, though, I'm going to stick with what we can measure consistently, and trust the fact that NFL teams seem to be coming to the same conclusions insofar as how they setup their draft boards to mean that there's probably something to the correlation data, after all.

What I'm really telling you is that most of the correlation theories that you see are not done by trained statistical analysts. One of my degrees is in mathematics and I wouldn't consider myself sufficiently trained to analyze how the running game affects winning in football. It is a really complicated statistical analysis project.

I would venture to guess that most of the guys on the internet with these theories don't have sufficient training to have any business making conclusions from these overly simplistic correlations.

It is just not possible to determine the importance of rushing in a football game using only total rushing yards or rushing yards per attempt. There is no way using these simplistic statistics to show how a rushing threat helps the passing game.

Defenses adjust to contain the run which helps the passing game. That fact that defenses adjust keeps the running game yardage in check. Two offenses could have the same rushing yardage in a game, but 1 offense required the defense to commit 8 men in the box to contain it while the other offense only required the defense to commit 7 men in the box to contain it. The offense that required the defense to commit 8 men probably had better passing statistics and a better winning percentage.

The fact that amateur wanna-be statistical analysts can't show statistically how the running game affects winning does not in any way indicate that it doesn't. It only indicates that it's too complicated for them to show using their handy-dandy spreadsheet and commonly available statistics.

The majority of yards in a football game come from passing. Saying that passing correlates to winning is not much more revealing than saying that points scored correlates to winning.

These internet self appointed statistical know-it-alls really think they have discovered something with their passing correlates to winning rhetoric; however, just think about it with some common sense. If it was really all about the passing game and the running really paled in comparison, there would be no LBs or Safeties on the defense. They would all be CBs. Defenses would have 4 DE types across the DLine and 7 CBs behind them.

 

[Idgit]

...The fact that amateur wanna-be statistical analysts can't show statistically how the running game affects winning does not in any way indicate that it doesn't. It only indicates that it's too complicated for them to show using their handy-dandy spreadsheet and commonly available statistics.

The majority of yards in a football game come from passing. Saying that passing correlates to winning is not much more revealing than saying that points scored correlates to winning.

These internet self appointed statistical know-it-alls really think they have discovered something with their passing correlates to winning rhetoric; however, just think about it with some common sense. If it was really all about the passing game and the running really paled in comparison, there would be no LBs or Safeties on the defense. They would all be CBs. Defenses would have 4 DE types across the DLine and 7 CBs behind them.

This is just more confusion about what the data actually says. Nothing suggests the running game is not important to an offense. It obviously is as it can put teams in position to pass more effectively. This is the obvious reason why personnel hasn't evolved as you suggest it would.

That doesn't change the fact that running the ball effectively-outside of short yardage situations-doesn't give teams an advantage.

Whatever you have to say about the correlations, the fact that NFL teams believe that passing effectiveness wins football games is apparent from their drafting, their free agent decisions, and from their offensive playcalling trends. I don't think there's really much of a question what's going on. You don't really even have to look too closely at what the passing effectiveness data suggests to realize that the trend is apparent.

 

[Alexander]

Whatever you have to say about the correlations, the fact that NFL teams believe that passing effectiveness wins football games is apparent from their drafting, their free agent decisions, and from their offensive playcalling trends. I don't think there's really much of a question what's going on. You don't really even have to look too closely at what the passing effectiveness data suggests to realize that the trend is apparent.

The drafting has a lot to do with supply and demand. Most college programs, even high school programs, develop players with the passing game in mind.

The fact alone has a lot to do with the passing trend. And it is not all that surprising to see that when teams run and are committed to doing it, it comes as a shock.

 

[Idgit]

The drafting has a lot to do with supply and demand. Most college programs, even high school programs, develop players with the passing game in mind.

The fact alone has a lot to do with the passing trend. And it is not all that surprising to see that when teams run and are committed to doing it, it comes as a shock.

There's a reason the passing game is favored in college, too. Supply is always going to meet demand. The question is, what's driving demand. And that answer is 'success'.

 

[TwoDeep3]

There seems to be the notion that Scott Linehan will help the running game, or run more, or whatever.

I have two issues with the idea. First off, why would Scott Linehan even have to be brought in for the team to run more frequently?

I don't know. Maybe because he said this.

"Things that were done last year in the running game with DeMarco, the running style that was created here is really a good fit,” Linehan said recently on 105.3 The Fan [KRLD-FM]. “That’s going to be our strength, being able to lean on that running game a little bit more than they have in the past.

And this.
“Obviously, with this offensive line, this is going to be something that’s going to help our passing game. The looks that Dez [Bryant] started to get as the year went on, people started giving him the attention that Calvin [Johnson] and Randy Moss would get as far as getting those double coverages. You need to have those other facets of your offense as far as your running game.”

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...-on-demarco-murray-and-the-running-game.html/

I suggest it all depends on several issues.

1. Are the brain trust smart enough to use the running game to help the defense?

2. Will someone tell Romo don't change the play just because he likes to pass.

3. If Linehan is in complete control.

Of course Linehan also addressed what he did in Detroit with this quote.
“We threw it a lot in Detroit, but a lot of our passing game was designed to be a lot of what we didn’t feel we had in the running game,” Linehan said.

http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sports/...owboys-play-caller-scott-linehan-give-him.ece

While what people say isn't what they always mean, it appears that Linehan understands the utilization of all the parts. With this line, the running game should ne much better.

That lends itself to clock management.

 

[Alexander]

There's a reason the passing game is favored in college, too. Supply is always going to meet demand. The question is, what's driving demand. And that answer is 'success'.

And that" success" in the passing game gets next to zero in terms of titles.

 

[Hoofbite]

I don't know. Maybe because he said this.

"Things that were done last year in the running game with DeMarco, the running style that was created here is really a good fit,” Linehan said recently on 105.3 The Fan [KRLD-FM]. “That’s going to be our strength, being able to lean on that running game a little bit more than they have in the past.

And this.
“Obviously, with this offensive line, this is going to be something that’s going to help our passing game. The looks that Dez [Bryant] started to get as the year went on, people started giving him the attention that Calvin [Johnson] and Randy Moss would get as far as getting those double coverages. You need to have those other facets of your offense as far as your running game.”

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...-on-demarco-murray-and-the-running-game.html/

I suggest it all depends on several issues.

1. Are the brain trust smart enough to use the running game to help the defense?

2. Will someone tell Romo don't change the play just because he likes to pass.

3. If Linehan is in complete control.

Of course Linehan also addressed what he did in Detroit with this quote.
“We threw it a lot in Detroit, but a lot of our passing game was designed to be a lot of what we didn’t feel we had in the running game,” Linehan said.

http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sports/...owboys-play-caller-scott-linehan-give-him.ece

While what people say isn't what they always mean, it appears that Linehan understands the utilization of all the parts. With this line, the running game should ne much better.

That lends itself to clock management.

I think you missed the point entirely.

Why would the head coach have to bring in someone to run more if he wanted to run more?

If any head coach wanted to run the ball, why couldn't he just tell his previous OC to focus on running?

What Linehan has said isn't even relevant to the question.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I think you missed the point entirely.

Why would the head coach have to bring in someone to run more if he wanted to run more?

If any head coach wanted to run the ball, why couldn't he just tell his previous OC to focus on running?

What Linehan has said isn't even relevant to the question.

Because Garrett is not head coaching material and has shown he doesn't understand the running game aspect by the GB game only from last season. The offensive line now has something it did not have last year. The defense has shown it cannot be trusted and nothing done in the off-season can validate this defense will be able to create a pass rush, and the running game makes the defense better because of time of possession, and Linehan said he didn't have a running game in Detroit to exploit.

All the rest is subjective by you.

 

[Stash]

Because Garrett is not head coaching material and has shown he doesn't understand the running game aspect by the GB game only from last season. The offensive line now has something it did not have last year. The defense has shown it cannot be trusted and nothing done in the off-season can validate this defense will be able to create a pass rush, and the running game makes the defense better because of time of possession, and Linehan said he didn't have a running game in Detroit to exploit.

All the rest is subjective by you.

I think Garrett's struggles in handling the running game are well documented and established. When you're getting out-coached by Joe Buck up in the booth, it's pretty clear there's a problem.

And his history as a coach clearly illustrates the fact that the team has tried to give him 'help' in that area on multiple occasions - be it with Sparano or the attempted hire of Dan Reeves.

Many of us hope that Linehan 'helps' in that area as well. I think they're out of any possible excuses not to, not that that's ever stopped them before...

 

[Wolfpack]

I think Garrett's struggles in handling the running game are well documented and established. When you're getting out-coached by Joe Buck up in the booth, it's pretty clear there's a problem.

And his history as a coach clearly illustrates the fact that the team has tried to give him 'help' in that area on multiple occasions - be it with Sparano or the attempted hire of Dan Reeves.

Many of us hope that Linehan 'helps' in that area as well. I think they're out of any possible excuses not to, not that that's ever stopped them before...

Jason has no real history with the running game other than his brief time as the OC here. After Sparano left, the running game was awkward here, running slow developing traps and power pull in short yardage and tosses to a slow but powerful Barber. Then after they "rebuilt" the line for agility and speed, they go back to dives and isolation runs. Aikman mentioned it during a game, he called it "odd". Jason was a quarterback and never had any coaching time working with running plays, he is(was) just way too green for the OC position.

 

[Bullflop]

Jason has no real history with the running game other than his brief time as the OC here. After Sparano left, the running game was awkward here, running slow developing traps and power pull in short yardage and tosses to a slow but powerful Barber. Then after they "rebuilt" the line for agility and speed, they go back to dives and isolation runs. Aikman mentioned it during a game, he called it "odd". Jason was a quarterback and never had any coaching time working with running plays, he is(was) just way too green for the OC position.

Norv Turner tried to convince Jerry of that during the time when he was being inverviewed by Jerry to possibly assume the OC position. As it turns out, he was 100% correct. I imagine Jerry might have concluded at the time that Norv was simply saying as much to make himself appear more desirable and JG less so. Jerry should have seen at the time that he was asking for trouble.

 

[Rockport]

This has been discussed in some detail many times. This issue isn't that the running game isn't important. The issue is that, statistically speaking, running it more effectively than the other guy doesn't appear to make you more likely to win games. It doesn't follow from that that you don't need to run the ball.

I'm not sure I understand how your interpreting the winning effectiveness correlations as single variable analyses, but, whatever the method, if we happen to unpack the data in a way that indicates running a football effectively makes us more likely to win a football game, then I'll happily change my position. Until then, though, I'm going to stick with what we can measure consistently, and trust the fact that NFL teams seem to be coming to the same conclusions insofar as how they setup their draft boards to mean that there's probably something to the correlation data, after all.

Relying on statistics to form ones opinion leads to incorrect conclusions. Isn't that common knowledge?

 

[xwalker]

Whatever you have to say about the correlations, the fact that NFL teams believe that passing effectiveness wins football games is apparent from their drafting, their free agent decisions, and from their offensive playcalling trends. I don't think there's really much of a question what's going on. You don't really even have to look too closely at what the passing effectiveness data suggests to realize that the trend is apparent.

Your above sentence is correct, but this is where the concept goes off the rails:

That doesn't change the fact that running the ball effectively-outside of short yardage situations-doesn't give teams an advantage.

The effectiveness of the running game can't be measured in yardage. The sentence above has the implication that team with a good running threat has no advantage over a team without one which is completely false.

The statistics would only work if defenses didn't adjust to the team with the better rushing threat. The simple statistics just don't take in account the adjustment by defenses and how that affect the passing game.

Obviously, the NFL has become more of a passing league and passing is very important; however, the importance of the running game is being minimized by people that spread the "passing efficiency correlates to wins" rhetoric.

One of my concerns has been that Garrett might have bought into this concept himself and that could be the reason that he has never utilized the running game correctly.

There is a reason that Mark Twain coined the phrase:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

 

[Hoofbite]

The passing game makes up the bulk of offensive output. The fact that there's a correlation between more effective passing and winning shouldn't shock anyone.

It also shouldn't lead anyone to any specific conclusion about the running game.

There's is no way to guarantee you are the better passing team in any given game. As long games can be won by running, passing, KR, and PR it's foolish to ignore any of them no matter how weak the correlation may be because playoff spots are determined by 1 game all the time.

 

[Hoofbite]

Because Garrett is not head coaching material and has shown he doesn't understand the running game aspect by the GB game only from last season. The offensive line now has something it did not have last year. The defense has shown it cannot be trusted and nothing done in the off-season can validate this defense will be able to create a pass rush, and the running game makes the defense better because of time of possession, and Linehan said he didn't have a running game in Detroit to exploit.

All the rest is subjective by you.

Subjective by me?

I posted the guys track record, you came back with all the excuses in the world and I'm subjective?

 

[Idgit]

Your above sentence is correct, but this is where the concept goes off the rails:

The effectiveness of the running game can't be measured in yardage. The sentence above has the implication that team with a good running threat has no advantage over a team without one which is completely false.

The statistics would only work if defenses didn't adjust to the team with the better rushing threat. The simple statistics just don't take in account the adjustment by defenses and how that affect the passing game.

Obviously, the NFL has become more of a passing league and passing is very important; however, the importance of the running game is being minimized by people that spread the "passing efficiency correlates to wins" rhetoric.

One of my concerns has been that Garrett might have bought into this concept himself and that could be the reason that he has never utilized the running game correctly.

There is a reason that Mark Twain coined the phrase:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

If the defensive adjustments to an effective running game mattered, then they would show up in the victory correlations. But they don't.

But the correlations aren't rhetoric. They are real attempts to measure what's most likely to win an NFL football game. Given that personnel resources are limited, you should want your coach to have a plan for spending them effectively. Over committing to areas that don't make you more likely to win games doesn't do that.

As for Twain's qoute...we hear it a lot, and it's great. It only applies in cases where statistics eitger aren't measuring properly or aren't being interpreted correctly. As I've said, the trend lines for play selection and draft selection and player salaries make it pretty clear what NFL teams really believe. Passing effectively is the name of the game, and passing effectiveness differential is a pretty good measure of which teams win over time. It's silly to ignore that just because it might seem counterintuitive.

 

[Idgit]

Relying on statistics to form ones opinion leads to incorrect conclusions. Isn't that common knowledge?

No. I don't think so. Many people like to measure or weigh things before deciding what's important and why.

I believe it's *not* relying on actual information that's most commonly associated with poor conclusions.