Outliers, YPC, and the Cowboys running game

Sorry to correct.. But he had six.. Throw in the playoff GB fumble.. That's actually seven.

61 posts and I already consider you a most formidable poster. You *******.... Remind me not to muckety mucky muck with you when I randomly "Go off the pasture," on some random poster and it happens to be you.
 
Anything that happened game one should be thrown out

I agree on pass protection but overall I thought we were deadly on play action at least for intermediate. We don't have a true burner for the deep stuff on play action. Williams has speed but not enough to be 20 yards downfield 2.5 seconds after the play action.

Why? Romo shouldn't have thrown that ball and he played like poo but they weren't fooled nor was anyone else all year long. It was uncanny as bad as teams overplayed the run that they always could tell run pass it seemed.

As for that game, outside of Romo crapping the bed, what we were able to do running the ball was pretty indicative of what we did most of the year.
 
Why? Romo shouldn't have thrown that ball and he played like poo but they weren't fooled nor was anyone else all year long. It was uncanny as bad as teams overplayed the run that they always could tell run pass it seemed.

As for that game, outside of Romo crapping the bed, what we were able to do running the ball was pretty indicative of what we did most of the year.

I cant really back it up unless statistics back it up, but i feel like many times we killed it on PA.
 
We really didn't call it very much.

That's not what he said. You said teams knew whether we passed or ran. If that's the case we shouldn't have been more successful on PA verses normal passes. Would you like to take that stance?
 
That's not what he said. You said teams knew whether we passed or ran. If that's the case we shouldn't have been more successful on PA verses normal passes. Would you like to take that stance?

Would you like to put up some stats? I think both were true. I'll take both stances. Am I sure? Nope, haven't seen the stats.
 
Agreed. The number of carries given Murray hurt the overall productivity of the offense IMO.

I think there were points left on the field.

This year you can expect to see the same or slightly more runs then last year but it will be more spread around. Combine that with a better defense and it should get us over the hump. Anyone who thinks we are going back to pass happy is mistaken, and anyone "Hoping" will be disappointed.
 
This year you can expect to see the same or slightly more runs then last year but it will be more spread around. Combine that with a better defense and it should get us over the hump. Anyone who thinks we are going back to pass happy is mistaken, and anyone "Hoping" will be disappointed.

We're pretty clearly going to keep up the relatively high rushing percentage.
 
Sorry to correct.. But he had six.. Throw in the playoff GB fumble.. That's actually seven.

NFL.com and ESPN have him with 5 regular season fumbles. He only had 3 fumbles in the regular season on rushing plays.

I thought they were after long carries, but those were the receptions(34 and 9 yards)

The fumbles on the carries were after 9, 2 and -2 yard gains.
 
Last edited:
I dunno about that. Big runs happen quite often in short yardage situations relative to other downs and distances. Situational is a good approach in general to give a detailed view but adjusting for outliers is a different matter.

I looked it up and of his top 15 runs, 13 of them came on 1st and 10. One was 2nd and 4 and one was 3rd and 1.

In fact out his top 30 runs there was only the one 3rd/4th and short.

Probably an anomaly, but he did his most damage on 1st and 10.
 
We've talked a lot this offseason about the effects of removing Demarco Murray from the lineup and what it's likely going to do to change the sorts of defenses we'll have expected to run against, and the sort of production we're likely to have as a result. I was doing a little bit of research a few days ago on some other RBs who might be available for us later in the offseason here, and came across this article which I thought was pretty interesting. The basic gist of it is that, while a relatively high YPC over a long period of time is a very good barometer of the best backs in league history, statistically, that's maybe a bit misleading because the very highest YPC runs are so very few and far between. As a result, it's a very small number of running plays spread over the course of a long season that separates a productive runner for one who is average or below average.

A case in point from the article, using Demarco Murray as the example:




7 out of 393 plays. That's not very many. That's the number of plays we'd need over league average performance from our RBs to effectively match the sort of production we got from Murray last season. Whether that's coming from the guys on our roster, or instead we're getting it from the passing game where last season we might have run it. The vast majority of the runs we got from him in that fantastic season last season were not outliers, and the pattern more likely correlated with what we might see from other runners.

Now, this doesn't address the dirty runs argument that we've seen so much of. But then those dirty carries are rolled up in the other 386 carries that also happen to be fairly dependent on our ability to execute our blocking scheme effectively. In fact, it might even be the case that we see a higher percentage of these outlier YPC runs from the other backs, both McFadden and Randle have show the ability to that that more often than Demarco did.

What do you guys think? I was surprised how few of an exceptional RBs carries were actually unusual by statistical standards, and how much that affected the estimation of RB performance, overall. This also goes a ways towards explaining why rushing effectiveness might not be all that significant a factor in winning football games. You can easily see the net effect of Murray's 7 outlier runs from last season getting swamped in what would essentially be less than .5 incremental big passing plays/week. With QBs like Romo and Rodgers going up against QBs like RGIII and Foles, that half a big play isn't really that much to make up at all.

Yes. If you remove seven giant value runs a player comes down in average. But those big runs are huge in terms of scoring.

Any heavy tailed distribution suffers from this issue with mean computation. However here the mean (arithmetic average) does transmit good information. Being well above the league average means you busted some big, likely important runs
 
Yes. If you remove seven giant value runs a player comes down in average. But those big runs are huge in terms of scoring.

Any heavy tailed distribution suffers from this issue with mean computation. However here the mean (arithmetic average) does transmit good information. Being well above the league average means you busted some big, likely important runs

The expected points went from 15.2 to 34.6 after his top 7 runs, including one TD. Almost 2.8 points per run.
 
Yeah. It's far from an exhaustive or comprehensive measurement of anything. I think we all know intuitively that Randle's 6.7 YPC from last year (or whatever it was) was a function of the small sample size.

It's just a snapshot, really, of how the big runs affect YPC in a league where YPC is considered the quick-measure of a running game's effectiveness.

Another interesting aspect of last year's Cowboy running game is our defensive vulnerability and the need to control the clock. I have been one who has not been complimentary of Murray's tendency to run to darkness, but he was punishing would-be tacklers, prolonging drives, and running the clock. The season was historic for its turn-around, record yards by a RB, and protection of a porous defense.

I would love to see more big runs from scrimmage this year, and I believe we will.
But last year's ball control offense was just what we needed at that time, limiting opponents offensive series.

This year's D should be able to handle more work with shorter drives, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some blow-out games, with our O getting more series and scoring more. That's always good to get reps for the subs, and prepare for the post-season.

We may actually have won fewer games if Murray had several long TD runs - our D may have totally broken down simply due to # of reps.
 
Anyone who thinks we are going back to pass happy is mistaken, and anyone "Hoping" will be disappointed.

I hope that isn't in reference to my post. If it was you should reread it because I didn't say anything about hoping to be pass happy again. If you aren't referring to my post then please point out who on this board has said they want to go back to pass happy because I haven't seen it once this entire offseason.
 
We've talked a lot this offseason about the effects of removing Demarco Murray from the lineup and what it's likely going to do to change the sorts of defenses we'll have expected to run against, and the sort of production we're likely to have as a result. I was doing a little bit of research a few days ago on some other RBs who might be available for us later in the offseason here, and came across this article which I thought was pretty interesting. The basic gist of it is that, while a relatively high YPC over a long period of time is a very good barometer of the best backs in league history, statistically, that's maybe a bit misleading because the very highest YPC runs are so very few and far between. As a result, it's a very small number of running plays spread over the course of a long season that separates a productive runner for one who is average or below average.

A case in point from the article, using Demarco Murray as the example:




7 out of 393 plays. That's not very many. That's the number of plays we'd need over league average performance from our RBs to effectively match the sort of production we got from Murray last season. Whether that's coming from the guys on our roster, or instead we're getting it from the passing game where last season we might have run it. The vast majority of the runs we got from him in that fantastic season last season were not outliers, and the pattern more likely correlated with what we might see from other runners.

Now, this doesn't address the dirty runs argument that we've seen so much of. But then those dirty carries are rolled up in the other 386 carries that also happen to be fairly dependent on our ability to execute our blocking scheme effectively. In fact, it might even be the case that we see a higher percentage of these outlier YPC runs from the other backs, both McFadden and Randle have show the ability to that that more often than Demarco did.

What do you guys think? I was surprised how few of an exceptional RBs carries were actually unusual by statistical standards, and how much that affected the estimation of RB performance, overall. This also goes a ways towards explaining why rushing effectiveness might not be all that significant a factor in winning football games. You can easily see the net effect of Murray's 7 outlier runs from last season getting swamped in what would essentially be less than .5 incremental big passing plays/week. With QBs like Romo and Rodgers going up against QBs like RGIII and Foles, that half a big play isn't really that much to make up at all.

Addendum; I'd love to see the Yards Before Contact on these outlying runs. It'd serve to be extremely useful, in my opinion,on the future effectiveness of our run game.
http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas-cowboys/post/_/id/4739113/romos-play-action-passes-bringing-big-gains

The article presents a mixed bag. High YPA, few attempts, 5 of his 9 total picks for the year on those 75 attempts.

Looks like we can all be right.

Interesting note. I was always curious why we didn't play call PA, and my hunch was they wanted Romo's eyes downfield as much as possible. I think there was a considerable effort to reduce TO's on offense, given the state of our defense, and as such play action wasn't called as much.

It'll be interesting to see as our defense improves over the course of the season, whether we utilize play action more.
 
Its the mental part that the bean counters always miss. YPC, etc is not as important as what you can do to the DC. and the D on the field. By the end of the year they were selling out to stop the Run and Romo was killing them. Which is exactly what you want.

A powerful and consistent running game makes the passing game almost easy. That is what those claiming the running game is not very important and slobber all over the passing game miss every time.

I do agree we need to work on the PA portion of our offense- it should have been much more deadly more of the year then it was.
 
Its the mental part that the bean counters always miss. YPC, etc is not as important as what you can do to the DC. and the D on the field. By the end of the year they were selling out to stop the Run and Romo was killing them. Which is exactly what you want.

A powerful and consistent running game makes the passing game almost easy. That is what those claiming the running game is not very important and slobber all over the passing game miss every time.

I do agree we need to work on the PA portion of our offense- it should have been much more deadly more of the year then it was.

This is a nice idea that good running teams pass better. Too bad it's not supported on the field.

I agree on the play action bit, too.
 
This is a nice idea that good running teams pass better. Too bad it's not supported on the field.

I agree on the play action bit, too.

Devil's advocate, has anyone actually posted stats about the passing efficiency of a team like the Packers, or Patriots, in years they were able to run the ball more efficiently?

I'd assume that the efficiency of the passing game is affected positively by the *threat* of the run game in the teams with better QB's. I haven't really done any legwork on that assumption.
 
To further cloud the issue, are those 7 longer runs more the result of outstanding ability of the RB or is it great blocking at all levels, from the OL, FB, TE, and WR's? I would say more often than not it's the later that creates those long runs.

I disagree...............basically you are saying the RB doesn't matter, it is all about the blocking.

Top backs in this league have proven they are more valuable than just an average back. If you want proof, look no further than the Dallas Cowboys. They offered Murray $6 million a season and offered McFadden a happy meal to sign. The team obviously didn't think last year's rushing totals was mainly due to blocking, otherwise you don't offer a RB $6 million a season unless you think he personally is responsible for a lot of the yards himself.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
464,614
Messages
13,822,170
Members
23,781
Latest member
Vloh10
Back
Top