Back To The Future? How The Cowboys May Be Exploiting NFL Trends With The Running Game

[AdamJT13]

I don't think any of us needs stats to see that the Cowboys don't do well when Romo passes too much

It's NOT ABOUT how much you pass. It's about passing well when you do pass, whether it's 10 times in a game, 15 times, 20 times, 25 times, 30 times or whatever. No matter how many times you pass the ball -- whether it's a little or a lot -- the key is to be able to pass it well. And, of course, stop the opponent from passing well.

And teams usually only "pass too much" when they NEED to pass because they are already losing. When you are behind in the second half, especially in the fourth quarter, you are much more likely to pass because you're trying to catch up. You've got to score points, and the fastest way to do that is almost always to pass the ball. This has been explained many times -- we don't lose BECAUSE Romo throws the ball more, Romo throws the ball more WHEN we are losing.

I've already posted the numbers showing that he has passed MORE in the first half and MORE in the first three quarters of the games he has won than in the games he has lost. The only reason he has more overall attempts in his losses (as is almost always the case with any quarterback) is because of the fourth-quarter attempts when we're trying to catch up. Really, how difficult is that to comprehend?

If the stats was so cut and dried that the running game was not a factor in winning, the modern NFL teams would have totally phased out the RB position.

That's a ridiculous assumption and absolutely not true. Have you never seen a running back catch a pass? Have you never seen a running back pass block? This has nothing to do with the running back position, it has to do with the team's overall rushing efficiency. And there are many reasons to run the ball -- even if you're not doing it very well. That's the point some people can't comprehend, apparently. This isn't about passing more or running less. It's about your passing efficiency (and pass efficiency defense) being much more important than your rushing efficiency (and rushing efficiency defense). You want to be a run-first offense? Fine. Run it all you want. But no matter how well or how poorly you run it, whether you win or lose will still almost always depend on how well you pass and stop the pass.

I think Adam has done a good job of cherry picking stats to support his opinion.

As I have explained many times, this is NOT "my opinion" -- it's not an opinion at all. It's just a fact. This isn't something that I came up with, and I don't pick the stats. I don't create the stats. The stats are what they are because the facts are the facts. All I do are state the facts -- which have been proved over and over, every week, every season, for every team, for several decades. There are dozens and dozens of studies that have been done since at least the early 1980s (none of which have had anything to do with me), and they all reveal the same thing -- passing efficiency is extremely important, and rushing efficiency is almost insignificant. To argue otherwise is to ignore the facts, which some people apparently don't have a problem doing.

I am sure that there are stats to confirm the role the running game has in the offense.

Yes, the running game has a role. But what that role is NOT based on is how well you run the ball (or stop the run on defense) overall.

 

[cowboys2233]

It's NOT ABOUT how much you pass. It's about passing well when you do pass, whether it's 10 times in a game, 15 times, 20 times, 25 times, 30 times or whatever. No matter how many times you pass the ball -- whether it's a little or a lot -- the key is to be able to pass it well. And, of course, stop the opponent from passing well.

And teams usually only "pass too much" when they NEED to pass because they are already losing. When you are behind in the second half, especially in the fourth quarter, you are much more likely to pass because you're trying to catch up. You've got to score points, and the fastest way to do that is almost always to pass the ball. This has been explained many times -- we don't lose BECAUSE Romo throws the ball more, Romo throws the ball more WHEN we are losing.

I've already posted the numbers showing that he has passed MORE in the first half and MORE in the first three quarters of the games he has won than in the games he has lost. The only reason he has more overall attempts in his losses (as is almost always the case with any quarterback) is because of the fourth-quarter attempts when we're trying to catch up. Really, how difficult is that to comprehend?




That's a ridiculous assumption and absolutely not true. Have you never seen a running back catch a pass? Have you never seen a running back pass block? This has nothing to do with the running back position, it has to do with the team's overall rushing efficiency. And there are many reasons to run the ball -- even if you're not doing it very well. That's the point some people can't comprehend, apparently. This isn't about passing more or running less. It's about your passing efficiency (and pass efficiency defense) being much more important than your rushing efficiency (and rushing efficiency defense). You want to be a run-first offense? Fine. Run it all you want. But no matter how well or how poorly you run it, whether you win or lose will still almost always depend on how well you pass and stop the pass.



As I have explained many times, this is NOT "my opinion" -- it's not an opinion at all. It's just a fact. This isn't something that I came up with, and I don't pick the stats. I don't create the stats. The stats are what they are because the facts are the facts. All I do are state the facts -- which have been proved over and over, every week, every season, for every team, for several decades. There are dozens and dozens of studies that have been done since at least the early 1980s (none of which have had anything to do with me), and they all reveal the same thing -- passing efficiency is extremely important, and rushing efficiency is almost insignificant. To argue otherwise is to ignore the facts, which some people apparently don't have a problem doing.



Yes, the running game has a role. But what that role is NOT based on is how well you run the ball (or stop the run on defense) overall.

To suggest that stats cannot be misinterpreted because they are facts is ludicrous. And that's the point. Erroneous conclusions can be drawn from factual evidence. A study is conducted, showing that ice cream consumption and road rage are positively correlated, when ice cream consumption goes up, so do incidences of road rage. So do we conclude that eating ice cream causes road rage? Of course not. It's a third, latent factor that causes both, hot weather. Conclusions have been drawn from fact throughout history...and by some very smart people, and many of those conclusions have turned out to be flat wrong because the facts have either been misinterpreted or there are additional factors that haven't been considered.

 

[Tolstrup]

In technical jargon, rush efficiency explains only 4.4% of the variance in wins. You might as well guess randomly.

Pass efficiency explains 62% of the variance in wins in the NFL.

https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-nfl-teams-make-and-win-in-the-playoffs/

When Bill Belichick was at Ginats he even told the defence to let Thurman Thomas get more than 100 rushing yards.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Running the ball only works well in the regular season ..in the playoffs it's the qb that wins you games.

Peyton sure won the Broncos the SB last year.

 

[jnday]

It's NOT ABOUT how much you pass. It's about passing well when you do pass, whether it's 10 times in a game, 15 times, 20 times, 25 times, 30 times or whatever. No matter how many times you pass the ball -- whether it's a little or a lot -- the key is to be able to pass it well. And, of course, stop the opponent from passing well.

And teams usually only "pass too much" when they NEED to pass because they are already losing. When you are behind in the second half, especially in the fourth quarter, you are much more likely to pass because you're trying to catch up. You've got to score points, and the fastest way to do that is almost always to pass the ball. This has been explained many times -- we don't lose BECAUSE Romo throws the ball more, Romo throws the ball more WHEN we are losing.

I've already posted the numbers showing that he has passed MORE in the first half and MORE in the first three quarters of the games he has won than in the games he has lost. The only reason he has more overall attempts in his losses (as is almost always the case with any quarterback) is because of the fourth-quarter attempts when we're trying to catch up. Really, how difficult is that to comprehend?




That's a ridiculous assumption and absolutely not true. Have you never seen a running back catch a pass? Have you never seen a running back pass block? This has nothing to do with the running back position, it has to do with the team's overall rushing efficiency. And there are many reasons to run the ball -- even if you're not doing it very well. That's the point some people can't comprehend, apparently. This isn't about passing more or running less. It's about your passing efficiency (and pass efficiency defense) being much more important than your rushing efficiency (and rushing efficiency defense). You want to be a run-first offense? Fine. Run it all you want. But no matter how well or how poorly you run it, whether you win or lose will still almost always depend on how well you pass and stop the pass.



As I have explained many times, this is NOT "my opinion" -- it's not an opinion at all. It's just a fact. This isn't something that I came up with, and I don't pick the stats. I don't create the stats. The stats are what they are because the facts are the facts. All I do are state the facts -- which have been proved over and over, every week, every season, for every team, for several decades. There are dozens and dozens of studies that have been done since at least the early 1980s (none of which have had anything to do with me), and they all reveal the same thing -- passing efficiency is extremely important, and rushing efficiency is almost insignificant. To argue otherwise is to ignore the facts, which some people apparently don't have a problem doing.



Yes, the running game has a role. But what that role is NOT based on is how well you run the ball (or stop the run on defense) overall.

I am not responding to all of that , but there are a couple points I will address. I can promise you that running the ball poorly or not being able to stop the run can be big factors in wins or losses. It is a long day on defense when the ball is run down their throats. When a RB has a 150+ rushing day, it is going to play a major role towards that offense winning. I know your response will be their passing game was good in that game as the reason for the win, but the running game made the good passing day possible. If anything, the running game plays a big part in the success of the passing. If a defense is stacking 8 men up front, the passing game will benefit. Another point I will address is that I am not doubting your stats as being fact. I never have. I will say that you present the stats that support your position. I am sure there are stats somewhere that shows how the passing game reaps the benefits of having a successful rushing attack. There are probably all kinds if stats that shows the big role that RBs and the running game has in winning games. As I have said before, I don't care enough to look stats up. A debate on a fan forum is not enough motivation for me to waste the time. I don't think you could stand with a straight face and say that the rushing game plays no part in winning. You have strongly hinted at that and as I stated, there would not be RBs if the passing game was the only factor in winning.

 

[casmith07]

The word "Exploitation" and our current Coaching Staff can never be stated together. The staff does not have a clue about strategizing a game plan to exploit a weakness Furthermore, halftime and in-game adjustments to exploit an injury or play calling by the opposing team has no bearing on our game plan. Garrett and crew just stick with game plan they developed during the week. Just "Ride the Storm" and hope that you can win the game somehow.

Go back to Ukraine.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

The reason why Romo's passing stats drop off dramatically after 36 throws (and drop-off even more after 40 throws) is likely twofold.

1. It signifies that the offense is unwilling to run the ball and are now a pass-heavy, dink-n-dunk passing offense. Romo is not a dink-n-dunk QB. He is most effective when throwing the ball on intermediate and deep pass players. His intermediate length throws are his best throws, but he's so good at extending the play and play action that he can get a receiver open deep which means he doesn't need to be as accurate if the receiver is wide open. If you're throwing a lot, you're likely to throw it short more often because of the penalty of having an incompletion.


2. As Jim Haslett said, he would see where Romo was going with the ball after all of these blitzes and then as the game progressed he could bait Romo into a throw and switch the coverage on him unexpectedly. This would help explain those late, back breaking INT's.

With many other QB's, throwing too much presents a problem because it usually means the running game isn't working, they are getting 2nd and 3rd and longs and trying to get the ball beyond the first down marker. But under Garrett/Romo we have simply neglected the run for no apparent reason in too many games prior to 2013. Much like the infamous Green Bay game in 2013 where Murray was knifing thru the Green Bay defense with ease and we had the lead and instead of running the ball and running out the clock, we abandoned the run and we wonder why our defense couldn't hold anybody.


The running game in itself will not make us a better team. But my point about the running game with Murray in 2014 is that it made for a balanced offense which made Romo's job much easier. And even still, the offense was not as balanced as I would have liked to have seen it. To me, a balanced offense is balanced in run/pass on first and 2nd downs as well as running the ball to the left, right and up the middle . But, we started to get much closer to a balanced offense overall in 2014 and that made Romo's job easier and he had a fantastic year. To me, THAT is the advantage out there in today's NFL where teams are so pass heavy and one dimensional. Create a good enough running game that can allow you to balance out the offense, make the QB's job easier and thus start to pass the ball more effectively.

Just as I don't want Romo to throw the ball more than 40 times in a game, even if it's working well, I really don't want us running the ball 40 times a game either (even if it is working well). That type of imbalance will eventually hurt your team.







YR

 

[visionary]

I just checked the Seahawks, Giants, and eagles defensive end heights and weights. Man those guys are jacked they avg around 6-3 270 lbs for first team 4-3 defensive ends. They have actually gotten bigger through this new passing age. The Cowboys defensive ends are actually on the light/ small size ( esp Gregory and Lawrence). 3-4 pass rushers are about 10-15 lb lighter than 4-3 DEs

Agreed

The cowboys don't really have a plan, they are a completely reactionary FO. Fans and media invent a different plan every year to try and make sense of their moves.

 

[Rogerthat12]

To suggest that stats cannot be misinterpreted because they are facts is ludicrous. And that's the point. Erroneous conclusions can be drawn from factual evidence. A study is conducted, showing that ice cream consumption and road rage are positively correlated, when ice cream consumption goes up, so do incidences of road rage. So do we conclude that eating ice cream causes road rage? Of course not. It's a third, latent factor that causes both, hot weather. Conclusions have been drawn from fact throughout history...and by some very smart people, and many of those conclusions have turned out to be flat wrong because the facts have either been misinterpreted or there are additional factors that haven't been considered.

This fact is often misunderstood, statistics and numbers are subjectively filtered through the interpreters particular categories of understanding and are thus not objective and are subject to misinterpretation often.

The main reason behind the poor use of statistics is a lack of understanding about what statistics can and cannot do. Many people think that statistics can speak for themselves. But numbers are as ambiguous as words and need just as much explanation and unpacking through interpretive exposition.

In many ways, this problematic is quite similar to that experienced with the use of direct quotes. Too often, quotes are expected to do all the work and are treated as part of the argument, rather than a piece of evidence requiring interpretation and contextualization.

Therefore, a better way to think about this issue is to ask whether all data have been presented in context. But it is much more complicated when you consider the bigger issue, which is whether the statistics or source presents enough evidence for you to draw your own conclusion. A reliable source should not exclude data that contradicts or weakens the information presented.

The critical lesson here is that even when the general interpretation is “accurate,” the data may not actually be evidence for a particular interpretation and that seems to be the issue with the impact of power formations and the running game on some QB's in NFL in terms of assisting them in passing efficiency and thus contributing to winning games.

Many in these exchanges would posit the passing game is ultimately how teams win in the NFL but disagree with the interpretation that this means the style and commitment to the running game has little to no effect on passing efficiency of some NFL QB's that play in an offense with a power running attack.

 

[Sarge]

In the early 1990s, we almost always won games when we passed the ball better than our opponent, regardless of whether we ran it better than our opponent. And when we didn't pass it better than the opponent, we usually lost, regardless of how well we (or Emmitt) ran it.

In fact, from 1992-95, we had a higher winning percentage when we ran the ball WORSE than our opponent (21-5, .808) than when we ran the ball BETTER than our opponent (38-11, .776).

The team that passed better in our games from 1992-95 went 62-13 (.827). The team that ran better went 43-32 (.573).

And we went 20-1 in the 21 games with our LOWEST rushing averages during those seasons.

Clearly, our games were almost always decided by whether we passed better than our opponent, not whether we ran it better.

Excellent post.

 

[Texas_Pete]

priority number one for the coaches, team, staff.......#cowboyszone

Is to Keep Romo upright. Keep him as healthy as he can be......

So when those LBs and DBs creep closer and closer.....Romo can make them pay......

Let the big boys upfront and the ultra talented RB , win the game....... only put Romo in danger when necessary......that should be a really hard criteria to meet too.....to put him in harms way.

I want to see Romo go untouched........................I know its not realistic....but that should be the goal...


that's how were going to win.

Zeke stonewalling Sheldon Day in pass protection :

Day has about 65 lbs on him too. Romo will be protected.

 

[gmoney112]

It is an interesting concept. With teams employing more nickel formations, a team employing a lot of talent, especially along the OL, it makes for an interesting study especially when they're employing a ZBS and have a legitimate QB and #1WR.

I actually think we're ahead of the curve for once.

And for what its worth, statistics are valuable, but they're used as tools to help achieve a desired outcome. In the NFL, the objective is clear, score more points than the other team. Then you can break it down until 2 subcategories, one for Offense (how to score more points), and one for Defense (how to stop them from scoring more points). It really is that simple conceptually. That's when statistics come in.

Stats have shown us that passing differential shows a large correlation with win %. Okay great. Now ideologically, what's the best way to do that, offensively? Put your QB in more favorable circumstances. Yes, more talent at WR and pass protection, but strategically this is going to come from more manageable down and distances. Sure, you'll have favorable matchups to exploit against certain defensive packages, but the first goal is to get first downs.

In 2014 Romo was the most efficient QB in the league, or 2nd, one of those. Romo is a magician and went crazy that year, but we were also near the top of the league in first down rush yardage, and Romo also had the most passing average yardage on 1st down as well. (I think it'd be a a little silly to assume that Tony doesn't know how to take advantage of a defense that might be preparing for a run, and that the threat of a run game had no effect on his leading the league in first down yardage.)

Yet even when Tony has his cape on, and completing 3rd and 11's at an incredible nearly 25% clip, he still performed better at more manageable distances(for the record the average 3rd down distance was 7 yards which he completed at a 40% rate). The average distance was skewed upward due to penalties, sacks, etc.

In 2014, we had a pretty great ratio of 0-3 yards at 34%, and 4-6 at 23%. We had the fewest 3rd downs of over 6 yards in the last 5 years. As a team we completed 0-3 yards with a 64% rate, and 4-6 with an over 50% rate. Tonys rating was around 53% for 0-3 yards and around 47% for 4-6 yards.

So what the hell does all this mean? Basically, it goes to show that even when your QB is Superman, he will not only be more efficient, but the team will be also as you increase your manageable down and distances for increasingly favorable circumstances.

However you decide to increase those circumstances is the teams call, teams do it any number of ways. NE has been using pick plays and the short passing game because their OL isn't very good and they suck at running the ball.

My point in all of this? Football isn't organic, and passing differential is obviously important, but first you need to get your team to these favorable circumstances where your QB can be most efficient.

In Dallas, in 2014, we had a great season from Romo and we ran the ball. We had 5 year highs in just about every manageable down and distance while also converting them at an extremely high rate. Romo still completed basically everything, but the offense, and yes the run game averaging over 6 yards a clip on first down, put him in more favorable circumstances and it lead to an incredibly efficient season if you're into increasing passer rating.

Tldr version; Combine good QB with good run game to increase manageable down and distances and lead to overall more efficient passer rating. Profit.

Now everybody just shut up about it.

 

[Nightman]

In technical jargon, rush efficiency explains only 4.4% of the variance in wins. You might as well guess randomly.

Pass efficiency explains 62% of the variance in wins in the NFL.

https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-nfl-teams-make-and-win-in-the-playoffs/

When Bill Belichick was at Ginats he even told the defence to let Thurman Thomas get more than 100 rushing yards.

and it backfired when Thomas went for 68yards of his 135 yds and scampered 31 yds for the go ahead TD in the 4th

they lose if Norwood does his job

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Emmitt's Playoff Record
in 6 seasons with top 12-rated passer: 12-3
in 9 seasons without top 12-rated passer: 0-2

And scene....

 

[Toruk_Makto]

oh LORD......Here we go again...... SMH

But I guess the way Emmitt played had NOTHING to do with making it easier for that QB to achieve that top RATED passer status?

So what happened in those other 9 seasons?

 

[JBS]

It's NOT ABOUT how much you pass. It's about passing well when you do pass, whether it's 10 times in a game, 15 times, 20 times, 25 times, 30 times or whatever. No matter how many times you pass the ball -- whether it's a little or a lot -- the key is to be able to pass it well. And, of course, stop the opponent from passing well.

And teams usually only "pass too much" when they NEED to pass because they are already losing. When you are behind in the second half, especially in the fourth quarter, you are much more likely to pass because you're trying to catch up. You've got to score points, and the fastest way to do that is almost always to pass the ball. This has been explained many times -- we don't lose BECAUSE Romo throws the ball more, Romo throws the ball more WHEN we are losing.

I've already posted the numbers showing that he has passed MORE in the first half and MORE in the first three quarters of the games he has won than in the games he has lost. The only reason he has more overall attempts in his losses (as is almost always the case with any quarterback) is because of the fourth-quarter attempts when we're trying to catch up. Really, how difficult is that to comprehend?




That's a ridiculous assumption and absolutely not true. Have you never seen a running back catch a pass? Have you never seen a running back pass block? This has nothing to do with the running back position, it has to do with the team's overall rushing efficiency. And there are many reasons to run the ball -- even if you're not doing it very well. That's the point some people can't comprehend, apparently. This isn't about passing more or running less. It's about your passing efficiency (and pass efficiency defense) being much more important than your rushing efficiency (and rushing efficiency defense). You want to be a run-first offense? Fine. Run it all you want. But no matter how well or how poorly you run it, whether you win or lose will still almost always depend on how well you pass and stop the pass.



As I have explained many times, this is NOT "my opinion" -- it's not an opinion at all. It's just a fact. This isn't something that I came up with, and I don't pick the stats. I don't create the stats. The stats are what they are because the facts are the facts. All I do are state the facts -- which have been proved over and over, every week, every season, for every team, for several decades. There are dozens and dozens of studies that have been done since at least the early 1980s (none of which have had anything to do with me), and they all reveal the same thing -- passing efficiency is extremely important, and rushing efficiency is almost insignificant. To argue otherwise is to ignore the facts, which some people apparently don't have a problem doing.



Yes, the running game has a role. But what that role is NOT based on is how well you run the ball (or stop the run on defense) overall.

How about the dallas cowboys and Tony Romo pass better the fewer times Romo throws the ball?

That's how the run game = better pass game for dallas

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It's NOT ABOUT how much you pass. It's about passing well when you do pass, whether it's 10 times in a game, 15 times, 20 times, 25 times, 30 times or whatever. No matter how many times you pass the ball -- whether it's a little or a lot -- the key is to be able to pass it well. And, of course, stop the opponent from passing well.

And teams usually only "pass too much" when they NEED to pass because they are already losing. When you are behind in the second half, especially in the fourth quarter, you are much more likely to pass because you're trying to catch up. You've got to score points, and the fastest way to do that is almost always to pass the ball. This has been explained many times -- we don't lose BECAUSE Romo throws the ball more, Romo throws the ball more WHEN we are losing.

I've already posted the numbers showing that he has passed MORE in the first half and MORE in the first three quarters of the games he has won than in the games he has lost. The only reason he has more overall attempts in his losses (as is almost always the case with any quarterback) is because of the fourth-quarter attempts when we're trying to catch up. Really, how difficult is that to comprehend?




That's a ridiculous assumption and absolutely not true. Have you never seen a running back catch a pass? Have you never seen a running back pass block? This has nothing to do with the running back position, it has to do with the team's overall rushing efficiency. And there are many reasons to run the ball -- even if you're not doing it very well. That's the point some people can't comprehend, apparently. This isn't about passing more or running less. It's about your passing efficiency (and pass efficiency defense) being much more important than your rushing efficiency (and rushing efficiency defense). You want to be a run-first offense? Fine. Run it all you want. But no matter how well or how poorly you run it, whether you win or lose will still almost always depend on how well you pass and stop the pass.



As I have explained many times, this is NOT "my opinion" -- it's not an opinion at all. It's just a fact. This isn't something that I came up with, and I don't pick the stats. I don't create the stats. The stats are what they are because the facts are the facts. All I do are state the facts -- which have been proved over and over, every week, every season, for every team, for several decades. There are dozens and dozens of studies that have been done since at least the early 1980s (none of which have had anything to do with me), and they all reveal the same thing -- passing efficiency is extremely important, and rushing efficiency is almost insignificant. To argue otherwise is to ignore the facts, which some people apparently don't have a problem doing.



Yes, the running game has a role. But what that role is NOT based on is how well you run the ball (or stop the run on defense) overall.

Doing the lord's work.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

How about the dallas cowboys and Tony Romo pass better the fewer times Romo throws the ball?

That's how the run game = better pass game for dallas

Games where Tony has had to throw few times...we likely entered the 4th quarter with the lead. Probably because Tony had a great first 3 quarters....and so he didn't have to throw in the 4th.

Games where Tony has had to throw a lot...we likely entered the 4th quarter in a deficit. Probably because Tony did not have a great first 3 quarters...and so he has to throw more into a defense expecting him to throw...in a game where he wasn't efficient from the start.

Causation vs. correlation.

 

[JBS]

Games where Tony has had to throw few times...we likely entered the 4th quarter with the lead. Probably because Tony had a great first 3 quarters....and so he didn't have to throw in the 4th.

Games where Tony has had to throw a lot...we likely entered the 4th quarter in a deficit. Probably because Tony did not have a great first 3 quarters...and so he has to throw more into a defense expecting him to throw...in a game where he wasn't efficient from the start.

Causation vs. correlation.

Still doesn't address my point

He's throwing better because he's throwing less

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Still doesn't address my point

He's throwing better because he's throwing less

I feel like you didn't read my words.