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

[CowboyRoy]

Again, you're stating the obvious. You're basically saying play well and win, play poorly and lose. How enlightening.

Until NFL teams decide to throw the ball 80% percent of the time I'll stick with what I've grown to know as "good" football.

Sorry you can't find a stat that relates to the importance of running the ball. It really doesn't matter, because the guys calling plays and trying to win actual NFL football games do.

If you asked Romo whether he thought the dominant run game makes his job easier what do you think he would say?

 

[CowboyRoy]

No, rushing efficiency has very little to do with passing efficiency. I have already posted the game-by-game breakdown from 2014 showing that there was virtually no correlation between how well Murray ran and how well Romo passed from week to week.

And of course Romo was No. 1 on the list. But you obviously still haven't figured out your error. Perhaps these three quotes will help --







Like I said, it's no wonder that you haven't been able to comprehend simple statistics.

Im going to help you learn the very simple game of football. Here, start educating yourself:

http://www.nbcdfw.com/blogs/blue-st...me-Romo-Playing-At-Elite-Level-279923232.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...-run-game-is-helping-tony-romo-022748674.html

In the second article they provide some nice pictures for you in case your reading comprehension is not up to par.



The Dallas Cowboys’ success in the running game is trickling down to the passing game.


You are starting to see defenses react to Dallas’ running game, with their great offensive line and running back DeMarco Murray. The New York Giants did last week, and the Cowboys were able to throw the ball effectively.

The main way to see how the Cowboys’ run game affected the Giants was through Dez Bryant. The Giants’ focus was on stopping the Cowboys’ run game more than Bryant, as they played almost exclusively with eight-man fronts and single-high safety coverages. The second half featured Prince Amukamara on Bryant in one-on-one coverage most of the time, and Bryant got the best of it. He had nine catches for 151 yards.

Mind boggling how its almost word for word what I just told you.

 

[CowboyRoy]

No, rushing efficiency has very little to do with passing efficiency. I have already posted the game-by-game breakdown from 2014 showing that there was virtually no correlation between how well Murray ran and how well Romo passed from week to week.

And of course Romo was No. 1 on the list. But you obviously still haven't figured out your error. Perhaps these three quotes will help --







Like I said, it's no wonder that you haven't been able to comprehend simple statistics.

One of the stories of the season has been the Cowboys’ running game and how it has fueled Dallas’ good start. Now we’re seeing that the running game is helping Romo, Bryant and the passing offense as well.

 

[BlindFaith]

One of the stories of the season has been the Cowboys’ running game and how it has fueled Dallas’ good start. Now we’re seeing that the running game is helping Romo, Bryant and the passing offense as well.

The problem Adam is having is that he can't find a quick easy stat for running efficiency to correlate to winning. He has his passer rating, which isn't as effective as QBR, to use for passing efficiency.

But he has nothing for the run game. Neither yards nor average define an efficient running game. Low stuff percentage, converting third and shorts, running efficiently and consistently enough to force the defense to adjust. Not to mention the other factors such as wearing a defense down, easier and more favorable for o lineman to run block, mitigating the elements, lower risk than passing.

Passing get's the attention because you get more yards if you're successful. It's more of a big play. Running is methodical and usually accumulated in small, incremental gains.

Both are important to winning.

 

[CowboyRoy]

The problem Adam is having is that he can't find a quick easy stat for running efficiency to correlate to winning. He has his passer rating, which isn't as effective as QBR, to use for passing efficiency.

But he has nothing for the run game. Neither yards nor average define an efficient running game. Low stuff percentage, converting third and shorts, running efficiently and consistently enough to force the defense to adjust. Not to mention the other factors such as wearing a defense down, easier and more favorable for o lineman to run block, mitigating the elements, lower risk than passing.

Passing get's the attention because you get more yards if you're successful. It's more of a big play. Running is methodical and usually accumulated in small, incremental gains.

Both are important to winning.

Nobody needs stats to figure this one out. All you have to do is watch football. Its football 101.

But he and I are not debating which one you need more off. I am simply claiming that a strong run game helps the passing game and vice versa. Nothing genius about it.

 

[Doomsday101]

The problem Adam is having is that he can't find a quick easy stat for running efficiency to correlate to winning. He has his passer rating, which isn't as effective as QBR, to use for passing efficiency.

But he has nothing for the run game. Neither yards nor average define an efficient running game. Low stuff percentage, converting third and shorts, running efficiently and consistently enough to force the defense to adjust. Not to mention the other factors such as wearing a defense down, easier and more favorable for o lineman to run block, mitigating the elements, lower risk than passing.

Passing get's the attention because you get more yards if you're successful. It's more of a big play. Running is methodical and usually accumulated in small, incremental gains.

Both are important to winning.

Very true. I think running game takes a major toll on a defense and really puts them on their heels when they are unable to stop the run game. I believe the passing game is very important I just do not get those who do not see the great benefit of an excellent running attack and the effect it has on a defense.

 

[Nightman]

The problem Adam is having is that he can't find a quick easy stat for running efficiency to correlate to winning. He has his passer rating, which isn't as effective as QBR, to use for passing efficiency.

But he has nothing for the run game. Neither yards nor average define an efficient running game. Low stuff percentage, converting third and shorts, running efficiently and consistently enough to force the defense to adjust. Not to mention the other factors such as wearing a defense down, easier and more favorable for o lineman to run block, mitigating the elements, lower risk than passing.

Passing get's the attention because you get more yards if you're successful. It's more of a big play. Running is methodical and usually accumulated in small, incremental gains.

Both are important to winning.

You are correct

Plus QBR and Passer Rating also include INTs into the formula and the stats like ANY/A also include sacks as well as INTs.

So when you have a "stat" that incorporates Passing Well, Turnovers and Sacks it is only common sense to say that when you do those things well AND play better Defense you will win more than you lose.

The insanity starts when they say how well you run the ball has ZERO impact on winning. So you could run the ball 20 times for 50 yds or 25 times for 140 yards and there would be no difference.....child please

 

[waldoputty]

This thread is getting really boring.
I check in once in a while, and still the same...
Dont mean to be rude.

 

[BlindFaith]

You are correct

Plus QBR and Passer Rating also include INTs into the formula and the stats like ANY/A also include sacks as well as INTs.

So when you have a "stat" that incorporates Passing Well, Turnovers and Sacks it is only common sense to say that when you do those things well AND play better Defense you will win more than you lose.

The insanity starts when they say how well you run the ball has ZERO impact on winning. So you could run the ball 20 times for 50 yds or 25 times for 140 yards and there would be no difference.....child please

To be fair, number of yards or ypc is not that important. Whats important is that you get what you expect on each carry. Say you rush 20 times for 60 yards. Doesnt sound that great. But if you got 3 yards on every carry, converted on a few 3rd and shorts and were able to successfully run in the red zone then that is a highly efficient run game.

Now lets say you had 25 carries for 140 yards. Sounds pretty awesome. Maybe a 60 yard run brought down inside the 20. A couple 20 yarders on first down. The rest being stuffs and short gainers. The stuffs lead to being forced to pass. And if you cant run in the redzone you'll have problems.

Now if you can be both efficient and awesome you're on to something. Guess thats why we picked Zeke at 4. Hopefully thats the case.

 

[plasticman]

Of course there is a correlation between the passing game and the running game, it would be ridiculous to assume tjete isn't.

What is the whole point behind "play action"? The defense has been successfully run on so they are more weary of the run. The quarterback fake hand off is effective precisely because the run is effective. This split second hesitancy is the vital element in creating seperation necessary for long completions.

In 2014 only one team passed less. Although the Cowboys were ranked #31 in attempts, they were #16 in yardage.

And then everyone knows the all familiar attempts stat associated with Romo, he win 75% of the games when he throws less than 35 times, 40% of the time when he throws more.

Each season Tony Romo has 6 to 10 games a season where he threw 35 or more passes. In 2014 he had 2.

Obviously, when he isnt passing , the Cowboys are running, that's an elementary correlation.

This is a norm for the entire NFL. Teams that pass more than 55% have a combined losing record. Teams that throw less than 52% have a combined winning record.

The entire "pick your poisen" scenario featured by the elite offenses in history was predicated upon the correlation between the run and pass as it pertained to opposing defenses. Key on the pass, we run. Key on the run, we pass.

 

[AdamJT13]

Never said that I would run on 3rd and 8 not sure how you are getting all this off the comment "that TD run or pass count the same"?

You said "the whole debate is meaningless," as if how well you run is just as important as how well you pass. That's obviously not true.

Good luck with passing 50 times a game it does not work for this offense.

You obviously have not been following the "debate" at all. I've never said anything about passing 50 times a game or even passing more than you run. How often you pass or run isn't the point -- how WELL you pass and defense the pass is the key. It doesn't matter whether that's 50 times out of necessity, 50 times out of design, 20 times out of design or 20 times because you're up by 30 points at halftime.

this notion you have that running game means nothing is total ******.

I didn't say it means nothing. I said how well you run means very little -- it has very little effect on whether you win or lose the game.

For many teams including teams like Carolina and Seattle the run game is a major part of what they do.

And it doesn't matter how well they run or stop the run -- how well they pass and stop the pass is what almost always determines whether they win or lose, just like it does for every NFL team.

Why would any team waste time running if it means so little?

There are many reasons to run the ball. It's just not that important to run it well, other than in third-down, short-yardage situations.

Object is to move the ball and put up points and regardless if it is done predominately through the air or ground is irrelevant.

Again, you're misunderstanding the entire debate. It's not about which one is "predominant."

 

[AdamJT13]

Again, you're stating the obvious. You're basically saying play well and win, play poorly and lose. How enlightening.

And yet, so many people seem to disagree. Amazing, isn't it?

Of course, I'm actually saying that playing will in some aspects of the game are much more important than playing well in other aspects of the game. Some aspects are very significant in deciding whether you win or lose, and others are not.

 

[AdamJT13]

Efficiency? Is this your secret code phrase.

Simple math. When the run game is humming the secondary starts creeping up and puts 8 -10 men in the box. That's less guys on the backside to defend the receivers. Play action works better too as they are focusing on the run. If you dont understand these simple concepts then you have no business in any football discussion.

I understand them very well. The problem for you is that those "simple concepts" don't actually translate into much of a difference over the course of a game or a season. And the run game is no factor at all in some situations -- arguably the most important situations, when the offense almost has to pass, and how well it succeeds is what most often ends up deciding the game.

Also, it has been proved that how well you run the ball has very little correlation with how well play-action works. It helps slightly overall, but the best play-action teams generally are also the best passing teams -- the teams with the best quarterbacks and the teams that are best without play-action.

 

[AdamJT13]

To be fair, number of yards or ypc is not that important. Whats important is that you get what you expect on each carry. Say you rush 20 times for 60 yards. Doesnt sound that great. But if you got 3 yards on every carry, converted on a few 3rd and shorts and were able to successfully run in the red zone then that is a highly efficient run game.

You're getting closer to understanding the point, but "3 yards on every carry" just doesn't happen in the NFL. That's like expecting a 100-percent completion rate. And you're right about it not mattering how well you run the ball overall -- yards per carry is almost meaningless. Basically, the only time it's important how well you run is in third-down, short-yardage situations.

 

[AdamJT13]

Of course there is a correlation between the passing game and the running game, it would be ridiculous to assume tjete isn't.

Nobody is assuming anything. See, a correlation is a mathematical relationship, and there have been many studies that reveal the same thing -- there is very little correlation between how well a team runs the ball and how well it passes the ball. That's not an assumption, it's just a fact.

What is the whole point behind "play action"? The defense has been successfully run on so they are more weary of the run. The quarterback fake hand off is effective precisely because the run is effective. This split second hesitancy is the vital element in creating seperation necessary for long completions.

Except that there also is very little correlation between how well a team runs the ball and how well it throws play-action passes. It still takes the quarterback and receivers to execute a play-action pass -- and the best play-action teams generally are the best teams at throwing non-play-action passes, too. The best rushing teams aren't any better at play-action than the worst rushing teams, especially when their non-PA passing is taken into account. For example, we were slightly WORSE on play-action passes in 2014 (38.6% DVOA) than we were in 2013 (39.0% DVOA). How does that happen if there is any correlation between rushing success and play-action passing success?

And then everyone knows the all familiar attempts stat associated with Romo, he win 75% of the games when he throws less than 35 times, 40% of the time when he throws more.

Each season Tony Romo has 6 to 10 games a season where he threw 35 or more passes. In 2014 he had 2.

Obviously, when he isnt passing , the Cowboys are running, that's an elementary correlation.

This is a norm for the entire NFL. Teams that pass more than 55% have a combined losing record. Teams that throw less than 52% have a combined winning record.

This is not about how often you pass, it's about how well you pass. Teams that are already losing pass a lot in the fourth quarter to try catching up. Teams that are already winning don't need to pass and can run the ball more. That's why all of those stats about running more and passing less are like that -- the strategy in the fourth quarter varies greatly depending on which team is already winning or losing. But the teams that are leading are almost always the ones who passed better earlier in the game -- and they also pass MORE, on average, than the teams that are losing. Until late in the game, of course.

 

[AdamJT13]

Im going to help you learn the very simple game of football. Here, start educating yourself:

http://www.nbcdfw.com/blogs/blue-st...me-Romo-Playing-At-Elite-Level-279923232.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...-run-game-is-helping-tony-romo-022748674.html

In the second article they provide some nice pictures for you in case your reading comprehension is not up to par.



The Dallas Cowboys’ success in the running game is trickling down to the passing game.


You are starting to see defenses react to Dallas’ running game, with their great offensive line and running back DeMarco Murray. The New York Giants did last week, and the Cowboys were able to throw the ball effectively.

The main way to see how the Cowboys’ run game affected the Giants was through Dez Bryant. The Giants’ focus was on stopping the Cowboys’ run game more than Bryant, as they played almost exclusively with eight-man fronts and single-high safety coverages. The second half featured Prince Amukamara on Bryant in one-on-one coverage most of the time, and Bryant got the best of it. He had nine catches for 151 yards.

Mind boggling how its almost word for word what I just told you.

Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant to the debate. Of course certain plays can be pointed out as examples -- linebackers reacting to a run fake is nothing new, and it doesn't happen only when teams can run the ball well. As I pointed out, play-action actually works well no matter how well you run the ball. There's very little correlation between rushing efficiency and passing efficiency on play-action passes. So that touchdown didn't happen because we could run well, it happened because our quarterback and tight end executed the play. It likely would have happened the same way if we couldn't run the ball. Our play-action passes were slightly more effective in 2013 than they were in 2014. Until you can explain that, your argument is moot. Like I said, all of the evidence is on my side.

 

[percyhoward]

And then everyone knows the all familiar attempts stat associated with Romo, he win 75% of the games when he throws less than 35 times, 40% of the time when he throws more.

W-L is a team stat, depending not just on your QB, but also on the performances of your own defense and running game. If your defense is giving up a lot of points and you're losing, it results in having more pass attempts in losses.

Here's how Romo himself (rather than his team) performs after 30 attempts, compared to other elite QB in their last five full seasons ending with 2014.

difference in passer rating after 30 attempts
Rodgers +5.9
Brady -8.1
PManning -8.8
Romo -10.5
Brees -11.1

Four of the five highest-rated passers over those five seasons suffered very similar drop offs after 30 attempts in a game. Rodgers is known for not taking risks when trailing late, which is why his rating doesn't suffer, although Green Bay's record in 4th-quarter comeback opportunities is terrible with him.

The idea when you have an elite QB like Romo is not to limit his attempts. Accordingly, over the last five seasons, Romo has more pass attempts over the first 3 quarters in the wins (25.4) than he does in the losses (24.8).

 

[CCBoy]

Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant to the debate. Of course certain plays can be pointed out as examples -- linebackers reacting to a run fake is nothing new, and it doesn't happen only when teams can run the ball well. As I pointed out, play-action actually works well no matter how well you run the ball. There's very little correlation between rushing efficiency and passing efficiency on play-action passes. So that touchdown didn't happen because we could run well, it happened because our quarterback and tight end executed the play. It likely would have happened the same way if we couldn't run the ball. Our play-action passes were slightly more effective in 2013 than they were in 2014. Until you can explain that, your argument is moot. Like I said, all of the evidence is on my side.

What is not needed in explanation, is an anecdotal criteria for success...and making that solely prima facie in a discussion. Other wise, how could the Cowboys of the 90's maintained a Dynasty when obviously the defense and a dominant running game played major roles. Now, slip into a Slim Jim or show more correlations between other facets to prove stayability during a season run and then winning it all in the playoffs. Not a statistical quagmire of irrefutable facts simply involving a passing game. The biggest plays always are a marker, but winning is more comprehensive, actually.

One can bleach a blue collar...but that doesn't make it white.

 

[DandyDon1722]

As teams get smaller to defend the pass The Cowboys get bigger/stronger.

This could be a very fun time.

Yep - not only that but if you really look around the league there are maybe 10-12 good QB's and there's a lot of kids like Dak coming out who have never taken a snap under center.

I think a power running game mitigates the lack of a good QB and maybe you can do just enough with an average one to win. That's why this Romo window is so important. When you have the QB and the run game - you should always be in the mix for a championship.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I understand them very well. The problem for you is that those "simple concepts" don't actually translate into much of a difference over the course of a game or a season. And the run game is no factor at all in some situations -- arguably the most important situations, when the offense almost has to pass, and how well it succeeds is what most often ends up deciding the game.

Also, it has been proved that how well you run the ball has very little correlation with how well play-action works. It helps slightly overall, but the best play-action teams generally are also the best passing teams -- the teams with the best quarterbacks and the teams that are best without play-action.

LOL..........I love how you act like it doesnt help at all, then say something like "it helps slightly". Again, thats your way of saying you are dead wrong.