Another Myth Buster (Running on 1st & 2nd)

[50cent]

So I got sick of posters insinuating that when we run on 1st and 2nd down it kills our offense because it puts us in too many 3rd and long situations. Well through 9 games, the Cowboys have run the ball on 1st and 2nd down on consecutive plays 33 times. Here are the 3rd down distances breakdown after those consecutive runs:

3rd and 6 or longer: 9 times
3rd and 5 or less: 14 times
Resulted in 1st Down or TD: 10 times

So 73% of the time when we run it on 1st and 2nd downs consecutively, we are either in a manageable 3rd and 5 or less situation or getting the 1st/TD. The running game has literally only put us in 3rd and 7 or longer only 5 times total all season after back to back runs on 1st and 2nd down.

Stop it with the running game only gets 0, 1, -1, -2 yards all of the time and forces us in passing situations. We just don't believe in giving it a chance. PERIOD!!

It's a simple play by play breakdown if you need proof of my totals!

 

[Dhragon]

When you are one of the worst 3rd down conversion teams in the NFL, anytime you have to convert a third down at all, it is not good. In your scenario 23/33 resulted in third down. I think we're only completing 20-30% of 3rd downs ( I believe Sturm's new article mentions the % but I don't remember what it was exactly but somewhere around 20-30% if I remember correctly).

That means running it twice in a row stops drives a lot. (23 x 30% = 7, 7+10 =17) 16/33 drives, or about half the drives would be punts after running it twice then on average.

You say it gives manageable 3rd down situations, but with the Boys lately, even manageable isn't quite so manageable.

Of those 33 drives, how many of them resulted in a first down? Actual numbers probably much better than my probability numbers.

 

[50cent]

When you are one of the worst 3rd down conversion teams in the NFL, anytime you have to convert a third down at all, it is not good. In your scenario 23/33 resulted in third down. I think we're only completing 20-30% of 3rd downs ( I believe Sturm's new article mentions the % but I don't remember what it was exactly but somewhere around 20-30% if I remember correctly).

That means running it twice in a row stops drives a lot. (23 x 30% = 7, 7+10 =17) 16/33 drives, or about half the drives would be punts after running it twice then on average.

You say it gives manageable 3rd down situations, but with the Boys lately, even manageable isn't quite so manageable.

Of those 33 drives, how many of them resulted in a first down? Actual numbers probably much better than my probability numbers.

3rd downs are part of the game. You're suggesting we get 10 yards in 2 plays the majority of the time and that's not realistic even with all of the passes we throw. The point of the post was that some believe running puts us behind the 8-ball when the passing game and its drops, penalties and sack put us in far worse down and distances on 3rd down than the run ever has. There's no way to avoid 3rd down, but to say that running on 1st and 2nd down is a detriment is just not true.

 

[links18]

3rd downs are part of the game. You're suggesting we get 10 yards in 2 plays the majority of the time and that's not realistic even with all of the passes we throw. The point of the post was that some believe running puts us behind the 8-ball when the passing game and its drops, penalties and sack put us in far worse down and distances on 3rd down than the run ever has. There's no way to avoid 3rd down, but to say that running on 1st and 2nd down is a detriment is just not true.

We just need to pretend we are playing Canadian rules. Works for other teams against us.