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

[Nightman]

In all honesty, Nebraska won by allowing less than 10 ppg during Tom Osborne's tenure as head coach. The black shirts on defense also would hold the opposing passer to 50% completion pct. (or less) and forced mistakes.

On offense, they only threw the ball between 6-10 times per game, but they completed 70-75% for about 100-120 yards each game. Even if they ran the ball for 300 yards, they still passed far more efficiently than the opposition.

Some of you guys still don't get it. It's not about how well you pass vs. how well you run. It's how well you pass vs. how well the opposition passes.

Oh I get it......just not buying it

 

[dboyz]

Passing efficiency most certainly correlates to winning more than running efficiency. In general, running is lower risk lower reward and passing is moderately higher risk and higher reward.

However, I think baked into this though is the fact that the easiest way to lose a game is the inability to stop the run. You may not see this in the NFL as much but certainly in college (more so back in the day) and high school. If a team is overmatched and can't stop the run, it is a quick route to a big defeat. Teams need to stop the run in order to make the passing game an issue. So, again "baked" into this is the fact that NFL teams commit significant resources to stopping the run, because if they didn't, it would be the quickest route to losing. There is no reason to believe for instance, that passing yards are inherently better, but it is just that yards per attempt is more likely higher than yards per carry at the NFL level. There is a little more risk, but generally speaking there is a great deal of more reward.

For instance, team A plays Team B. Team A defeats Team B with the following stats

Team A
20 rushes for 200 yards.
4 of 5 passing for 30 yards

Team B

20 rushes for 20 yards
4 of 5 passing for 20 yards

No one would say that team A won because it passed more efficiently, right. It won because it's offensive efficiency, particularly its running game was more efficient and productive, most likely. These stats are very unusual for the NFL, of course, because the teams are overall very even in athleticism and talent and generally speaking the running differential will not be significant enough to make a difference so the running game is essentially a stalemate and the passing game is the difference.

 

[AdamJT13]

LOL..........thanks for playing!!! Stick your foot in your mouth much?

Different ratings are used by the NFL and NCAA.

Minimum 1500 pass attempts to qualify as career leader, minimum 150 pass attempts Passer Rating1.Tony Romo* · DAL113.22.Aaron Rodgers*+ · GNB112.23.Ben Roethlisberger* · PIT103.34.Peyton Manning* · DEN101.55.Tom Brady* · NWE97.46.Drew Brees* · NOR97.07.Andrew Luck* · IND96.58.Carson Palmer · ARI95.69.Ryan Fitzpatrick · HOU95.310.Russell Wilson · SEA95.0

What are you even talking about? And you just posted the numbers that show the error in your original post as well as your second attempt. Like they say, third time's a charm!

 

[AdamJT13]

Plays here and there, but then its not? Yah, ok buddy. They have nothing to do with one another.

You don't understand logic very well. For there to be a causal relationship, there must be a correlation. If there is no correlation, there cannot be a causal relationship. For rushing efficiency and passing efficiency, there is a weak correlation, which means the "cause and effect" relationship between rushing efficiency and passing efficiency is weak. If you comprehend that, there really isn't anything to debate. If you don't comprehend what I just said, then you don't even understand the conversation.

 

[AdamJT13]

However, I think baked into this though is the fact that the easiest way to lose a game is the inability to stop the run.

Not true at all. Last year, for instance, there were 36 times when a team allowed 6 yards per rush or worse. The average yards allowed in those games was 176.8 (all allowing 100 yards or more). And those teams who couldn't stop the run went a combined 18-18. Over the past three years, teams allowing 6.0 YPC or more are 60-50-1. Over the past five years, it's 116-99-1. Over the past 10 years, it's 199-206-1. No matter the span of time, they always hover a little above or below .500 -- which reflects the weak correlation between rushing efficiency and winning.

You may not see this in the NFL as much but certainly in college (more so back in the day) and high school.

I have never said anything about whether this applies to college football, and I don't care.

 

[CCBoy]

Not true at all. Last year, for instance, there were 36 times when a team allowed 6 yards per rush or worse. The average yards allowed in those games was 176.8 (all allowing 100 yards or more). And those teams who couldn't stop the run went a combined 18-18. Over the past three years, teams allowing 6.0 YPC or more are 60-50-1. Over the past five years, it's 116-99-1. Over the past 10 years, it's 199-206-1. No matter the span of time, they always hover a little above or below .500 -- which reflects the weak correlation between rushing efficiency and winning.




I have never said anything about whether this applies to college football, and I don't care.

The same most likely could have been said about running game statistics as the NFL transitioned from a run dominant to pass dominant status. Change could also now occur as to yet another round of normalization efforts between run/pass as well.

Myself, I like what the odds of a truly dominant group of offensive linemen and depth says when matched with the running back group in house right now.

Linebacker and safety heads will be on swivels...or care to cross compare a turn-around at Citgo with the 'bankruptcy' efforts with Sherwin Aluminum?

 

[BlindFaith]

Passing Attempts has a negative correlation to winning
Passing yards has a .16 correlation to winning
Completion percent has a .32 correlation to winning

So, if more passing means more losing, then how do you not pass more? Answer - be able to run the ball efficiently and enough times so not to have to pass the ball a ton.

It's really not that complicated. And you never answered any of my other questions.

 

[CowboyRoy]

What are you even talking about? And you just posted the numbers that show the error in your original post as well as your second attempt. Like they say, third time's a charm!

Keep telling yourself that. Romo led the league in passer rating. Are you blind or just a sore loser?

 

[CowboyRoy]

You don't understand logic very well. For there to be a causal relationship, there must be a correlation. If there is no correlation, there cannot be a causal relationship. For rushing efficiency and passing efficiency, there is a weak correlation, which means the "cause and effect" relationship between rushing efficiency and passing efficiency is weak. If you comprehend that, there really isn't anything to debate. If you don't comprehend what I just said, then you don't even understand the conversation.

Obviously you dont understand the dynamics of how the pass works off the run and the run off the pass and what balance can do for an offense. Im not going to be the one to explain it to you.

 

[jnday]

I don't have a problem with the stats saying that the better passing team wins. I do have a problem with totally dismissing the contributions of a great rushing game. I don't know where the the stats are that shows how well the running game sets up the passing game or even where the stats are that shows the importance of the play action pass which is effective because of a threat from the running game. I am sure that they should be included in the conversation as well. As I have said, the league would have done away with the rushing game if it was as useless as the stats presented has indicated. That is the reason why cherry picked stats hold little value to me.

 

[Common Sense]

Except that it's not. Maybe it is on plays here and there, but for the most part, they are independent -- so much so that there is very little correlation over the course of a game, let alone the entire season.

Honest question -- couldn't that be due to the fact that you're only looking at run efficiency and not run usage? A statistically inefficient run game could be explained by a defense loading the box with linebackers, for example, creating matchup opportunities in the passing game, which would tend towards a more efficient passing game.

Taking it one step further, usage vs. efficiency doesn't necessarily imply that a team is running the ball more often, either. It just means that the opposing team is EXPECTING the run more often, which we don't have a way of quantifying. The most you could do is try to dig up clues here and there, possibly through media coverage or looking for supporting statistical data, i.e.:

- Were teams expected to game plan that week against a star running back?
- Did the back recently come off of a string of big games?
- Was this a team known for having the ability to hurt you with the run earlier in the season or even the previous season?
- Did passing efficiency ever go down when a star running back was injured?

The usage-efficiency curve in basketball is a perfect analogy here due to the way scheme, strategy, and available personnel have hidden affects on statistical outcomes.

 

[BlindFaith]

Honest question -- couldn't that be due to the fact that you're only looking at run efficiency and not run usage? A statistically inefficient run game could be explained by a defense loading the box with linebackers, for example, creating matchup opportunities in the passing game, which would tend towards a more efficient passing game.

Taking it one step further, usage vs. efficiency doesn't necessarily imply that a team is running the ball more often, either. It just means that the opposing team is EXPECTING the run more often, which we don't have a way of quantifying. The most you could do is try to dig up clues here and there, possibly through media coverage or looking for supporting statistical data, i.e.:

- Were teams expected to game plan that week against a star running back?
- Did the back recently come off of a string of big games?
- Was this a team known for having the ability to hurt you with the run earlier in the season or even the previous season?
- Did passing efficiency ever go down when a star running back was injured?

The usage-efficiency curve in basketball is a perfect analogy here due to the way scheme, strategy, and available personnel have hidden affects on statistical outcomes.

Efficiency is the key. For both passing and running. Yards don't matter. Attempts are actually inversely related. The more you pass after around 20 attempts, the more you tend to lose. The more you run over 25 times, the more you win. Two key factors play into both. Teams winning usually try to run more to close out the game. Teams losing tend to pass more to catch up.

No disagreement there.

We also know that you can't pass 100% of the time or run 100% of the time. You will never win that way. So if passing is the only thing that's important, why do they have to run to win? And they do. The most out of whack balance would be probably around 40% run to 60% pass. Chances are very high that those teams aren't going to the playoffs. More common is around 45% run to 55% pass. Some teams want an even 50 50 balance. Some want to run more than pass.

So the "horde" knows that you have to run to win. To me, that is correlation. But does running cause you to win more often or does passing cause you to win more often?

Stat guys are now talking about "passing efficiency". Not yards or attempts or completions. But being an efficient passing team, more importantly, an efficient QB. QBR has the highest correlation to winning. It's an efficiency stat. Passer Rating is second and that's what Adam likes to use. He doesn't believe in QBR either. But I digress.

So we all agree that having an efficient QB wins you games. We see the QBR or Passer Rating stat and we can find out how many wins a team has. Easy stuff.

But how do you measure an efficient running game or RB? Football Outsiders has a DVOA or DYAR stat. They can apply it towards passing, rushing or individual players. It measures efficiency. Do you get what you are suppose to get in certain situations. Or do you fall short or even exceed. Has nothing to do with number of attempts or total yards. Problem with that is that it isn't a stat that is easily accessible on a week to week basis. So it's hard to determine the correlation to winning of DVOA for each passing and rushing.

My belief is that having a high DVOA for both passing and rushing would result in a higher correlation to winning than simply QBR or Passer Rating. Now if having a high passing DVOA and low rushing DVOA still proves to have the highest correlation to winning, then we can shift the thinking towards the running game not having any value. But there are still factors that DVOA still doesn't account for. Such as how does running the ball and controlling time of possession along with DVOA correlate to winning? How do you really measure the physical affect on a defense when you can consistently rush the ball?

 

[AdamJT13]

Passing Attempts has a negative correlation to winning
Passing yards has a .16 correlation to winning
Completion percent has a .32 correlation to winning

So, if more passing means more losing, then how do you not pass more?

You are completely mistaking cause and effect. Teams that are already losing pass more later in the game. They usually have to in order to catch up. Teams that are already winning run more later in the game. They don't have to pass and don't want to take as many risks. Therefore, losing teams often end up with more attempts and more yards passing -- ONLY because of the end-of-game strategy used by teams that are ahead or behind. Saying "more passing means more losing" is simply ignoring what actually happens in the NFL. There have been many studies on this, and they all prove the same thing. Sorry if you can't comprehend it.

Answer - be able to run the ball efficiently and enough times so not to have to pass the ball a ton

Again, that's not how it works in the NFL. You can run the ball efficiently and as many times as you want, but that won't help you win many games unless you ALSO pass more efficiently than your opponent. If you don't pass more efficiently than your opponent, you're not likely to be ahead at the end of the game, and you will have to pass the ball then if you want to win.

 

[AdamJT13]

Obviously you dont understand the dynamics of how the pass works off the run and the run off the pass and what balance can do for an offense. Im not going to be the one to explain it to you.

I understand the dynamics very well. But unlike you, I understand the magnitude of those dynamics -- or rather, the lack thereof. And I have the facts on my side. All you have is rhetoric.

 

[AdamJT13]

As I have said, the league would have done away with the rushing game if it was as useless as the stats presented has indicated.

Why would the league do away with the rushing game just because overall rushing efficiency isn't important? There are still benefits to running the ball, as I've said many times. It just doesn't matter much how well you run it overall. The entire argument that "the league would get rid of running" is completely baseless and misguided.

 

[AdamJT13]

Keep telling yourself that. Romo led the league in passer rating. Are you blind or just a sore loser?

Maybe you should find out what his passer rating actually was before you post about it. It's hilarious that you still can't figure out your mistake.

 

[waldoputty]

Maybe you should find out what his passer rating actually was before you post about it. It's hilarious that you still can't figure out your mistake.

2014 Passer Rating
1.Tony Romo* · DAL113.2
2.Aaron Rodgers*+ · GNB112.2
3.Ben Roethlisberger* · PIT103.3
4.Peyton Manning* · DEN101.5
5.Tom Brady* · NWE97.4
6.Drew Brees* · NOR97.0
7.Andrew Luck* · IND96.5
8.Carson Palmer · ARI95.6
9.Ryan Fitzpatrick · HOU95.3
10.Russell Wilson · SEA95.0

 

[CowboyRoy]

I understand the dynamics very well. But unlike you, I understand the magnitude of those dynamics -- or rather, the lack thereof. And I have the facts on my side. All you have is rhetoric.

Magnitude of those dynamics? So basically you are dead wrong, your just not completely dead wrong? Got it.

Football is simple game and a good run game helps out the pass and vice versa. Nothing genius about it. Whether you get it or not or have some isolated stat to try and prove otherwise is of no consequence to me.

A good friend of mine has a father that is a genius. But he wrote an entire thesis paper on how Einsteins theory of relativity is wrong. Thats basically what you are trying to do at this point.

 

[CowboyRoy]

2014 Passer Rating
1.Tony Romo* · DAL113.2
2.Aaron Rodgers*+ · GNB112.2
3.Ben Roethlisberger* · PIT103.3
4.Peyton Manning* · DEN101.5
5.Tom Brady* · NWE97.4
6.Drew Brees* · NOR97.0
7.Andrew Luck* · IND96.5
8.Carson Palmer · ARI95.6
9.Ryan Fitzpatrick · HOU95.3
10.Russell Wilson · SEA95.0

A good run game doesnt affect the passing game and Romo isnt number 1 on this list?

You get the "you dont know football" and the "" award of the month. CONGRATS!!!!

 

[CowboyRoy]

2014 Passer Rating
1.Tony Romo* · DAL113.2
2.Aaron Rodgers*+ · GNB112.2
3.Ben Roethlisberger* · PIT103.3
4.Peyton Manning* · DEN101.5
5.Tom Brady* · NWE97.4
6.Drew Brees* · NOR97.0
7.Andrew Luck* · IND96.5
8.Carson Palmer · ARI95.6
9.Ryan Fitzpatrick · HOU95.3
10.Russell Wilson · SEA95.0

And Romo winning the league in passer rating and his best season ever had NOTHING to do with the fact that Murray ran all over the NFL that year either right? NAH, its not possible.