Outliers, YPC, and the Cowboys running game

[jterrell]

It is a very interesting stat because most people assumed what made Murray great was his performance on runs of 4-8 yards and that his largest weakness was lack of speed thus really big plays. but his largest plays were what separated him. Which does make sense given his abnormally high rushing totals for his top 10-12 games of his career compared to his career average per game.

IF you give any of the 4 backs in Dallas the same gaps I think they get more yards ON ANY SINGLE CARRY. I just believe all have better speed and quickness. What Murray gave you was toughness and blocking and solid all-around play. He stepped up and carried the load. But it was one season. Can any of the other guys step up quite like that? I don't think so. It is a body type issue. Murray built himself up via extreme MMA strength and conditioning to what he was last year. A semi rolling downhill.

But again, this isn't the Earl Campbell era anymore. Having Marion Barber in his prime was sweet but that was what 2.5 years? NFL power backs simply do not last in this league. AP and Beastmode have been aberrations but virtually every other guy has been a flash in the pan this last 10 years or so.

Think of it another way: Franchise RBs are actually MORE RARE than Franchise QBs.

Beastmode versus Lagarrette Blount might have been the biggest mismatch at position in the Super Bowl but it didn't really matter. NE won time of possession with it's passing game and even tho it gave up 169 yards rushing it surrendered only 24 points. Plus the Hawks didn't trust the run when it mattered most.

End of the day I am not sure Dallas needs one guy to be Murray. They need the running game to succeed.
If that is with 5 games of McFadden over 100, 5 games of Randle over 100 and 2 of RW over 100 with average rushing totals of 150 per game by committee that all equals the same 2400 yards rushing and is just fine by me. ESPECIALLY if it costs you 5m for all 4 guys and you get injury protection galore.

 

[jterrell]

Not ignoring it, because I agree it's fun to see. It's just that if all that demoralization doesn't help you win games, I don't consider it a factor beyond making the offense more fun to watch.

Perhaps this season we'll play defense at a level that makes it harder for the good teams to score themselves after being demoralized. That's when we'll really be able to see the offense take it to the other team.

The Cowboys OL will demoralize people.
It isn't like defensive dudes threw a party last year when Randle came into the game.
In fact it seemed very much like he came in mad and running guys over trying to earn more reps.
His average wasn't a fluke we just don't know that it is sustainable over more carries.

 

[Idgit]

It's the overriding factor in winning games. Always has been and always will be. Sure you can point out exceptions but the fact remains that if you control the offensive and defensive lines you're going to win a lot of football games.

Actually points are the overriding factor. It doesn't matter how demoralized you are or you aren't when you get them as long as you get them. If the other stuff mattered, it would show up in terms of winning percentage. But we've had this discussion before enough times that I know you're not all that interested in the actual data, so let's not trot around that circle yet another time. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

This year, at least, we appear to have both the OL and the DL if we get Hardy back for enough games. That should be enough to keep us both happy. You'll get your trench play, and I"ll my passing game differential, and hopefully the team will get its wins and we can debate why during a long happy offseason next year.

 

[Idgit]

The Cowboys OL will demoralize people.
It isn't like defensive dudes threw a party last year when Randle came into the game.
In fact it seemed very much like he came in mad and running guys over trying to earn more reps.
His average wasn't a fluke we just don't know that it is sustainable over more carries.

He runs smart and uses his blockers. Looks like he's playing Frogger once he gets into the secondary. I'm not sure why we're particularly concerned with him being able to handle the workload. I think it's more uncertainty because he's just never done it yet, but I don't see anything about him that makes me think he's unlikely to hold up. He doesn't have Murray's MMA running style--which is, again, really satisfying to watch. But from an injury standpoint, that's probably not a bad thing. I think he's going to end up being a pretty good back and, by week 5, the story line will be that he was a secret weapon. Really, though, he's a decent runner who's going to get good blocking in favorable situations because we've also got an effective passing game.

 

[Doomsday101]

Beastmode versus Lagarrette Blount do not play against each other it is Lynch vs Pats defense and Blount vs Seahawks defense. Only time they see each other is when they shake hands before and after the game. I would also point out that these are 2 very different styles of offense. Wilson is not going to be Tom Brady but his teams offensive system works great for them and what they do. Brady and the Pats may throw it as they did 50 times in the SB, if Seahawks are out there throwing it 50 time that SB game is not even close Seahawks are just not built that way but it was good enough to win the SB last season and came down to 1 play in this past SB contest.

I know around here there is a lot of debate about run vs pass and what wins games, we throw out stats to support our view but one thing gets left out of the mix and that is offenses around the NFL are not built the same way yet both passing teams and running teams have had great success at winning

 

[burmafrd]

It is a very interesting stat because most people assumed what made Murray great was his performance on runs of 4-8 yards and that his largest weakness was lack of speed thus really big plays. but his largest plays were what separated him. Which does make sense given his abnormally high rushing totals for his top 10-12 games of his career compared to his career average per game.

IF you give any of the 4 backs in Dallas the same gaps I think they get more yards ON ANY SINGLE CARRY. I just believe all have better speed and quickness. What Murray gave you was toughness and blocking and solid all-around play. He stepped up and carried the load. But it was one season. Can any of the other guys step up quite like that? I don't think so. It is a body type issue. Murray built himself up via extreme MMA strength and conditioning to what he was last year. A semi rolling downhill.

But again, this isn't the Earl Campbell era anymore. Having Marion Barber in his prime was sweet but that was what 2.5 years? NFL power backs simply do not last in this league. AP and Beastmode have been aberrations but virtually every other guy has been a flash in the pan this last 10 years or so.

Think of it another way: Franchise RBs are actually MORE RARE than Franchise QBs.

Beastmode versus Lagarrette Blount might have been the biggest mismatch at position in the Super Bowl but it didn't really matter. NE won time of possession with it's passing game and even tho it gave up 169 yards rushing it surrendered only 24 points. Plus the Hawks didn't trust the run when it mattered most.

End of the day I am not sure Dallas needs one guy to be Murray. They need the running game to succeed.
If that is with 5 games of McFadden over 100, 5 games of Randle over 100 and 2 of RW over 100 with average rushing totals of 150 per game by committee that all equals the same 2400 yards rushing and is just fine by me. ESPECIALLY if it costs you 5m for all 4 guys and you get injury protection galore.

I would argue that Carrol having a brain fart at the worst possible moment does not negate the Hags running game, or its effect on DC's.

 

[burmafrd]

Actually points are the overriding factor. It doesn't matter how demoralized you are or you aren't when you get them as long as you get them. If the other stuff mattered, it would show up in terms of winning percentage. But we've had this discussion before enough times that I know you're not all that interested in the actual data, so let's not trot around that circle yet another time. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

This year, at least, we appear to have both the OL and the DL if we get Hardy back for enough games. That should be enough to keep us both happy. You'll get your trench play, and I"ll my passing game differential, and hopefully the team will get its wins and we can debate why during a long happy offseason next year.

for some reason you have a real blind spot as regards things like momentum and putting a D on its heels and things like that. Its kind of funny.

 

[burmafrd]

Today's NFL has too many superior athletes to do what Earl Campbell did years ago- and even he did not really last that long. Jim Brown was the size of many O and D linemen when he played.

Today a 235 lb running back just cannot beat people up anymore- you would have to be about 280 or so to have the same effect. And even then the pure physical beating you would take will wear and break you down in three or four years at most.

 

[Idgit]

for some reason you have a real blind spot as regards things like momentum and putting a D on its heels and things like that. Its kind of funny.

I like it as much as the next guy. It's definitely fun to watch. But it's fickle. Boxers can get momentum, too, and it looks like they're just killing it. Until that left hook they never saw coming puts them down for the count and it turns out all that momentum didn't matter.

I think it's a real thing. Once players feel it, it makes it easier for them to play together with confidence. And that creates a gut-check moment when the momentum is against you. But one of the things I think Garrett's done a really nice job of instilling is that sense that those situations are going to happen and you still have to go out and execute the next play. Momentum has to be overcome just like everything else if you're going to win the close games in the NFL.

So, yeah. I recognize that momentum swings and one team or the other getting backed up on their heels happens every game. I just don't think that's what determines the actual outcome. As I said, points determine the outcome, so if you can put together a drive when you're on your heels and it turns out that they can't, that's how you end up winning the close football games.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Lots to go over here.

First, most RB's have carries in a similar pattern. For example, if you have a RB with a 4.2 yards per carry, you're likely to see most of his runs be for 1, 2 and 3 yards. Then the bigger runs help bring up the ypc as a whole.

There's a couple of things I've noticed about tailbacks statistically. Usually their standard deviation in their runs is roughly equal to their yards per carry. So, if a tailback averages 4.0 yards per carry, their standard deviation is going to be close to 4.0 yards as well. Meaning, 68% of their runs will be for 0 to 8 yards.

The other thing is that roughly half of their carries will be 50% of their ypc. So again, if a tailback averages 4.0 yards per carry, roughly 50% of those carries will be for 2 yards. That's why the stats show on 3rd and 1 and 3rd and 2 you're better off running than throwing more often than not. If you have a decent tailback, you should be able to get at least 2 yards 50% of the time. However on 3rd and 3, that's a riskier proposition.

The problem is that ypc leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn't account for strength of run defense that you're running against and more importantly, doesn't factor in down and distance. If I have a 3rd and goal from the 2 yard line against the best run defense in the league and I get the TD, it counts as a 2 yard run. But, I accomplished my goal, particularly against the best run defense in the league.

That's why I prefer Football Outsiders' methodology which factors in those areas. They had Murray as the #1 RB for the season. On a per play basis, he was #5 behind Marshawn Lynch, Jamaal Charles, Lamar Miller and CJ Anderson.

But, out of those 4 players, only Lynch had more than 250 carries on the season. So one could assume that if Charles, Miller and Anderson had gotten to even just 300 carries, their per-play efficiency would have dropped and possibly below Murray's per-play efficiency.

The other factor is that by running the ball so much, especially in the 1st and 3rd quarters, it has historically led to less injuries on defense. That's what the Cowboys did last year and while the defense didn't go unscathed, it was certainly a much healthier defense in the previous years under Garrett. The potential solution to the problem is that we could split the carries more and hope that by keeping the RB's fresh than they can match Murrays total year production and per-play efficiency, but that's still a tall order.

With all that being said, the odds are that Murray is not going to perform at the same level. In fact, the drop-off is likely to be considerable. I know Brian Burke eschews the 380+ carry notion, but using Eddie George as an example of a guy that gained 1,000 yards after a 380+ carry when he averaged 3.3 yards per carry isn't exactly the vote of confidence I was looking for.

So the reality is that we are almost assuredly to see a substantial drop-off in the running game this season even if Murray did stay. And we would basically be paying $8 million+ a year for a tailback that may play more like a $4 million a year tailback.

The real question is if we can get the current crop of tailbacks to perform better than say a $4 million tailback (assuming that's where the drop-off would be had Murray stayed with the team).

The other overlooked factor is can we replace Murray's production as a receiver out of the backfield. I think that was one of the more important changes the offense made in 2014...they stopped using Witten on pivot routes because he can't avoid and break tackles and instead used Beasley and Murray more out of the backfield to turn those 4 yard passes into 8 yard gains or first downs.






YR

 

[Idgit]

...The other factor is that by running the ball so much, especially in the 1st and 3rd quarters, it has historically led to less injuries on defense. That's what the Cowboys did last year and while the defense didn't go unscathed, it was certainly a much healthier defense in the previous years under Garrett. The potential solution to the problem is that we could split the carries more and hope that by keeping the RB's fresh than they can match Murrays total year production and per-play efficiency, but that's still a tall order.

Lot's of great stuff here, Rich. Love it.

I recall you talking about defensive injuries and their higher incidence last offseason, and it's really interesting. This paragraph here reads like you've seen specific data to support it. Is there something out there that says running more often (not necessarily more effectively, but more often) at the start of halves decreases defensive injuries for the running team? If so, why is it? It feels like there's something obvious here that I'm missing.

 

[jterrell]

Beastmode versus Lagarrette Blount do not play against each other it is Lynch vs Pats defense and Blount vs Seahawks defense. Only time they see each other is when they shake hands before and after the game. I would also point out that these are 2 very different styles of offense. Wilson is not going to be Tom Brady but his teams offensive system works great for them and what they do. Brady and the Pats may throw it as they did 50 times in the SB, if Seahawks are out there throwing it 50 time that SB game is not even close Seahawks are just not built that way but it was good enough to win the SB last season and came down to 1 play in this past SB contest.

I know around here there is a lot of debate about run vs pass and what wins games, we throw out stats to support our view but one thing gets left out of the mix and that is offenses around the NFL are not built the same way yet both passing teams and running teams have had great success at winning

That's actually not true.
Running teams have not had great success.
Passing game and passing game defense has been tied much more closely to success this past decade.

The data has been posted a couple dozen times now and it is very hard to ignore.

You do not need a great running back to succeed. It is obviously helpful and it can elevate a QB.
But when it is 3rd and 5 or part of some 2 minute drill a RB just really doesn't matter much in this era of football.
And those are game winning times.

Having an OL that can pass block and pass protect is awesome because they effect every play. A great RB effects about 40% of them.

Not a single team last year said man we'd have been great if we just had a running back.
I agree about style being a factor.

Seattle's offense works because Beastmode is the second most effective runner on the team... after Wilson.
They soften up the defense with Beastmode and Wilson gashes it, which opens up the passing game for mediocre passing to succeed.

The closest to a truly great RB of this generation is AP and his teams have been fairly awful. A great running back can only do so much. A QB like Romo keeps a terrible team at .500.

 

[jterrell]

Lots to go over here.

First, most RB's have carries in a similar pattern. For example, if you have a RB with a 4.2 yards per carry, you're likely to see most of his runs be for 1, 2 and 3 yards. Then the bigger runs help bring up the ypc as a whole.

There's a couple of things I've noticed about tailbacks statistically. Usually their standard deviation in their runs is roughly equal to their yards per carry. So, if a tailback averages 4.0 yards per carry, their standard deviation is going to be close to 4.0 yards as well. Meaning, 68% of their runs will be for 0 to 8 yards.

The other thing is that roughly half of their carries will be 50% of their ypc. So again, if a tailback averages 4.0 yards per carry, roughly 50% of those carries will be for 2 yards. That's why the stats show on 3rd and 1 and 3rd and 2 you're better off running than throwing more often than not. If you have a decent tailback, you should be able to get at least 2 yards 50% of the time. However on 3rd and 3, that's a riskier proposition.

The problem is that ypc leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn't account for strength of run defense that you're running against and more importantly, doesn't factor in down and distance. If I have a 3rd and goal from the 2 yard line against the best run defense in the league and I get the TD, it counts as a 2 yard run. But, I accomplished my goal, particularly against the best run defense in the league.

That's why I prefer Football Outsiders' methodology which factors in those areas. They had Murray as the #1 RB for the season. On a per play basis, he was #5 behind Marshawn Lynch, Jamaal Charles, Lamar Miller and CJ Anderson.

But, out of those 4 players, only Lynch had more than 250 carries on the season. So one could assume that if Charles, Miller and Anderson had gotten to even just 300 carries, their per-play efficiency would have dropped and possibly below Murray's per-play efficiency.

The other factor is that by running the ball so much, especially in the 1st and 3rd quarters, it has historically led to less injuries on defense. That's what the Cowboys did last year and while the defense didn't go unscathed, it was certainly a much healthier defense in the previous years under Garrett. The potential solution to the problem is that we could split the carries more and hope that by keeping the RB's fresh than they can match Murrays total year production and per-play efficiency, but that's still a tall order.

With all that being said, the odds are that Murray is not going to perform at the same level. In fact, the drop-off is likely to be considerable. I know Brian Burke eschews the 380+ carry notion, but using Eddie George as an example of a guy that gained 1,000 yards after a 380+ carry when he averaged 3.3 yards per carry isn't exactly the vote of confidence I was looking for.

So the reality is that we are almost assuredly to see a substantial drop-off in the running game this season even if Murray did stay. And we would basically be paying $8 million+ a year for a tailback that may play more like a $4 million a year tailback.

The real question is if we can get the current crop of tailbacks to perform better than say a $4 million tailback (assuming that's where the drop-off would be had Murray stayed with the team).

The other overlooked factor is can we replace Murray's production as a receiver out of the backfield. I think that was one of the more important changes the offense made in 2014...they stopped using Witten on pivot routes because he can't avoid and break tackles and instead used Beasley and Murray more out of the backfield to turn those 4 yard passes into 8 yard gains or first downs.






YR

good post but a couple clean up items.

1. Dallas had arguably the best run blocking OL in football last year. So any metric that doesn't factor in OL would be biased in favor of Murray. ESPECIALLY if it accounts for defense faced but not OL play.

2. Dallas was the 6th most injured defense last year (IIRC) but the offense escaped virtually unscathed with just the injury to Free really. So the running probably didn't help the defense all that much as far as injuries go.

 

[Idgit]

That's actually not true.
Running teams have not had great success.
Passing game and passing game defense has been tied much more closely to success this past decade.

The data has been posted a couple dozen times now and it is very hard to ignore.

You do not need a great running back to succeed. It is obviously helpful and it can elevate a QB.
But when it is 3rd and 5 or part of some 2 minute drill a RB just really doesn't matter much in this era of football.
And those are game winning times.

Having an OL that can pass block and pass protect is awesome because they effect every play. A great RB effects about 40% of them.

Not a single team last year said man we'd have been great if we just had a running back.
I agree about style being a factor.

Seattle's offense works because Beastmode is the second most effective runner on the team... after Wilson.
They soften up the defense with Beastmode and Wilson gashes it, which opens up the passing game for mediocre passing to succeed.

The closest to a truly great RB of this generation is AP and his teams have been fairly awful. A great running back can only do so much. A QB like Romo keeps a terrible team at .500.

A really effective running game--whether it's via the RB or the QB or a combination of the two--can keep you from making mistakes in the passing game. That's as important as making big plays in the passing game, and it's what generally gets overlooked in these rushing offense debates. That works in SEA, because they can also keep you from being successful in your own passing game. They can win by just making fewer mistakes than you do, and that's what they do. The Pats beat them, and barely, by finding ways to be slightly more efficient in the passing game.

And the best illustration of this was the goal line pick that Wilson threw when they should have run the ball.

It's pretty well established what wins and loses games in the NFL at this point. i don't understand why people don't just accept it because it seems obvious when you watch the games and it's constantly getting reinforced when you watch the very best teams play each other.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Lot's of great stuff here, Rich. Love it.

I recall you talking about defensive injuries and their higher incidence last offseason, and it's really interesting. This paragraph here reads like you've seen specific data to support it. Is there something out there that says running more often (not necessarily more effectively, but more often) at the start of halves decreases defensive injuries for the running team? If so, why is it? It feels like there's something obvious here that I'm missing.

I've done the research myself and there is definitely a mathematical correlation. That doesn't mean every single time, but it does show that the more you run in the first and third quarter that teams also have less defensive players lost to injury.

Historically, defensive players are more than twice as likely to get injured than offensive players. That's been proven by Football Outsiders.

So, with that...you need to keep your defensive players off the field if you want them to stay healthy. That's where the pass happy craze has hurt teams come January...they'll run roughshod thru the league in the regular season, but by the time January hits their defense is depleted with injuries and if they get a game where the weather is not cooperating, they are in for a struggle.

Instead, if you balance out the offense, particularly in the first and third quarter, you're keeping the players more likely to get injured...off the field.

The other part is that there is sometimes nothing you can do about throwing the ball at the end of each half. You can be up by 20 points with 2 minutes to go before halftime and the ball at your 20 yard line...you're still going to try and throw the ball and get yourself in scoring position. If you're trying to score at the end of the game, you're likely to throw the ball as well.

But, in quarters 1 and 3 that circumstance doesn't really exist and the teams that are dedicated to running the ball end up keeping their defense healthy more often than not.






YR

 

[Doomsday101]

That's actually not true.
Running teams have not had great success.
Passing game and passing game defense has been tied much more closely to success this past decade.

The data has been posted a couple dozen times now and it is very hard to ignore.

You do not need a great running back to succeed. It is obviously helpful and it can elevate a QB.
But when it is 3rd and 5 or part of some 2 minute drill a RB just really doesn't matter much in this era of football.
And those are game winning times.

Having an OL that can pass block and pass protect is awesome because they effect every play. A great RB effects about 40% of them.

Not a single team last year said man we'd have been great if we just had a running back.
I agree about style being a factor.

Seattle's offense works because Beastmode is the second most effective runner on the team... after Wilson.
They soften up the defense with Beastmode and Wilson gashes it, which opens up the passing game for mediocre passing to succeed.

The closest to a truly great RB of this generation is AP and his teams have been fairly awful. A great running back can only do so much. A QB like Romo keeps a terrible team at .500.

I'm sorry some teams are not built to be big passing team yet have won SB, this is not a 1 size fits all league. No doubt many teams will play copycat and many of them fail there are only so many Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers but if you have a Marshawn Lynch you don't need a Tom Brady or a Rodgers. Seahawks are not going to be a passing team but they can win and win big games. Dallas in the 90's was not the passing team like Buffalo or 49ers we did not have to be to win.
Object of the game it to put up points and to prevent other team from putting up points, how you go about it really does not matter. Running TD count the same as a passing TD. I have always said passing is important but running game can have a big impact for several teams in this league and works.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

2. Dallas was the 6th most injured defense last year (IIRC) but the offense escaped virtually unscathed with just the injury to Free really. So the running probably didn't help the defense all that much as far as injuries go.

Dallas improved dramatically in their injuries on defense. And the history of injuries shows that defensive players are more than twice as likely to get injured than offensive players. So it's not all that crazy to see an offense go relatively unscathed while the defense suffers injuries.

So yes, the defense had a lot of injuries...but compared to 2011-2013 it was a large improvement that coincided with much more running of the ball in Q1 and Q3.




YR

 

[Idgit]

....The other part is that there is sometimes nothing you can do about throwing the ball at the end of each half. You can be up by 20 points with 2 minutes to go before halftime and the ball at your 20 yard line...you're still going to try and throw the ball and get yourself in scoring position. If you're trying to score at the end of the game, you're likely to throw the ball as well...

Ah, that makes sense. Good stuff.
Any chance the defensive injuries skew towards the LB position? It would make sense that they do, and LB and S seem to be areas where we've personally been clobbered the last couple of season. I'm curious, because we seem to be beefing up that LB corps with a lot of contenders this season. I know there were times last season when we were down to our last three healthy backers and crossing our fingers.

I'm wondering if maybe we're looking at going heavy at that position group this year and if it could be related to what you're talking about here. I know when we made the move to the 4-3, one of the considerations was the toll that injuries were taking on the defense, and how hard it was to bring players up to speed on Rob's complicated system when you added them late in the season. So we went with something more simplistic and modular that simplified responsibilities and emphasized technique for a reason.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

i think it boils down to as fans we are so scared of a couple of years ago and the several years prior where our run game was horrific and we're panicking thinking it is returning to that when it doesnt really have the likelihood of doing so.

 

[Doomsday101]

i think it boils down to as fans we are so scared of a couple of years ago and the several years prior where our run game was horrific and we're panicking thinking it is returning to that when it doesnt really have the likelihood of doing so.

For me it is a concern, would not go as far as being in a state of panic. Hopefully guys we have someone will step up and show they can do the job at RB. Right now it is a big if, If McFadden can resurrect his career, if Williams can actually play at this level so right now we are entering a season with an IF instead of knowing. In 2013 Dallas showed they could run the problem was we were not running enough to seal games off but when we ran it was effective. In 2014 Dallas finally started to run the ball as many wanted and it worked and they won, not just against the sorry teams but vs true contending teams and now we are back to IF