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

[CowboyRoy]

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.

When you learn the basics of football, then come on back to the conversation. Until then keep studying and watching football.

 

[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.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Bill Bellichick knows more about football then you do.

Now dont say I never taught you anything.

"I think the play-action pass is all -- it hinges around the run game," Belichick said. "If the defense feels like it has to commit to the run or has to be more aggressive against the run, then that helps the passing game. I think those two things can go hand in hand. The better you can run, the better you can play-action. The worse you run it, the less pull play-action has. So those two areas complement each other."

Maybe you can get a job working for the Patriots teaching Belichick how it really works. LOL

Just use common sense. If the running game didnt help the passing game in play action, then why would they even fake the handoff?
ummm........ummmmm...ummmmmm....................

 

[bark]

The back and forth in this thread has been an interesting and entertaining read.
Both sides have brought forth great points and Adam , as always, has brought the statistical evidence to back his views.
I will say this .... I hope the running game still has a place in today's nfl because it appears we are loading up to pound on some people this year.
So many of the games come down to the last possession or two in the 4 th quarter.
I'm hoping that we are able to put a few of those 4 minute drives together this year where the offense just grinds a weary defense down and protects those three and four point leads.
We will all learn a lot soon enough.....

 

[Corso]

The San Antonio Spurs decided to go against the grain by going full on post power/isolation gameplan and leaving the pass-happy teams that won them a championship by going "against the grain" because of the rise of the Golden State Warriors and many other teams doing the "pace and space" gameplan.

They didn't even make it to face Golden State, with their great players and legendary coach.

Going against the grain is not always the panacea we're looking for.

 

[Nightman]

The San Antonio Spurs decided to go against the grain by going full on post power/isolation gameplan and leaving the pass-happy teams that won them a championship by going "against the grain" because of the rise of the Golden State Warriors and many other teams doing the "pace and space" gameplan.

They didn't even make it to face Golden State, with their great players and legendary coach.

Going against the grain is not always the panacea we're looking for.

But they were beat by a team that can go big just like them but that has 2 dynamic scorers

OKC has demolished GS in 2 of the games so far by going big with Ibaka, Adams and Kanter

SA just ran into a similar hot team, they didn't lose a game at home this year...I will take their track record over the last decade anytime

 

[casmith07]

I think they are putting way too much thought into this. Garrett was on those 90s teams and has said all along, the reason those teams were so successful on offense had to do with a having a great offensive line and a solid running game. When he got a chance to see that in action in 2014, the results were exactly what he expected and if there were still any doubters on the Cowboys staff or front office, they likely changed their minds after that season.

Garrett has always preached execution being the key, which is really what it comes down to in professional sports .. well, that and player health. The quality of players is so close that new schemes and tactics only provide you with a temporary advantage at best. What separates you from your competitors is execution and consistency. The running game provides an easier path to achieving those goals over the long term. Of course if you have a great quarterback and/or a great defense, the need for higher execution decreases a little.

The Cowboys are not run by geniuses, and that's not meant to be an insult. It's not like they arrived at this point through an elevated means of thought. The Cowboys have tried copying several successful team's blueprints over the years since the 90s, but none of them have worked. They basically tried everything else and it failed, so with Garrett's ties to the 90s teams, it made sense for them to now try rebuilding what they had back then and that all started with the offensive line. They drafted well in that area which greatly improved the running game and also showed them they can still emulate a lot of the 90s success in that area. However, Romo's age and, as a result, health are X factors now which is why they wasted 2015 when he was injured.

Agreed. The bottom line is that the anecdotes about "a passing league" and more are just that - anecdotes. The league is what you make of it, and the Cowboys have decided - under Garrett - to be a power running team (I hope).

 

[coach steele]

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.

They appeared to do well in 2014 of doing this. I get it. We were 8-8 before that (for three years). Last year we were 4-12, which stinks no matter the circumstance. Nevertheless, Linnehan and Marinelli are not dummies. At some point, play makers make plays (which make all coaches look smart). We just didn't have many playmakers last year. Romo? Gone. Dez? Injured. Dunbar (surprise, surprise)? Injured. Playmaking running back? Nowhere to be found.

Are defense has consistently lacked playmakers.

 

[Gacosta24]

A few points --

-- Whether it did or it didn't "create opportunities" is irrelevant to the main point, which is that whether they stopped the run or didn't stop the run had almost no effect on whether they successfully stopped the pass.

-- The "opportunities created" by the running game apply only in some situations and arguably do not apply in many of the most important situations. And the difference between the opportunities created by a great running game and those created by a mediocre or poor running game in those situations is not significant enough to make that much of a difference overall. (And given that the offense's contributions are only half of the equation when determining which team is most likely to win or lose, it explains why there's very little correlation between rushing efficiency and winning.) As I've said many times, many of the "opportunities created" by an effective rushing game can be created just as well by a mediocre or poor rushing game because defenses react more to down-and-distance, formations, personnel and execution than they react to reputation. For example, theoretically, the better you can run the ball, the better you should be able to pass the ball using play-action -- but in reality, there's very little correlation between how well a team runs the ball and how effective it is on play-action passes. In general, the better passing teams and better quarterbacks are also better on play-action passes, regardless of how well they run the ball.

-- Selling out to stop the run was obviously counterproductive for our opponents.




I think the "defense is tired" excuse is convenient and overplayed. And we've heard the same things about defenses being too tired against passing teams because the linemen have to chase the quarterback all over the place. I guess defenses just get too tired whether the offense is rushing or passing. But to answer your question, if it has a negative effect on the defense, it didn't show up in the field. Pro-football-reference's quarter data goes back to only 1994, but for 1994-95, our passing in the fourth quarter (80.8 rating, 5.604 ANYPA) was worse than our passing in the first three quarters (92.5 rating, 5.963 ANYPA). If we look at 1994-99 (the available data for the Aikman-Emmitt era before Aikman got hurt in 2000), then it's 79.6 and 4.831 in the fourth quarter, compared with 84.2 and 5.292 in the first three quarters.

With all due respect to you and your statistical research. It does l, possibly, have a bit of a flaw. The goals and successes of the rushing and passing game differ greatly based on situation. Therefore "success" can not be calculated by yrds/rush alone. Rushing plays are typically "designed" to gain 5 yards. The situation would determine the success and not yards per rush alone. Would you happen to have situational statistical analysis on rushing offense? I would be curious. Sorry guys, to resurrect this topic, but it interests me.