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

[jnday]

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.

I am just hewing my post on your previous comments.

 

[Doomsday101]

The object is still producing TD and as long as a rushing TD equals the same as a passing TD this whole debate is meaningless.

 

[Nightman]

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.

But you made the mistake of saying Romo had a 124 Passer Rating instead of 113(and his playoff Passer Rating was 125, so that may be the source of the confusion)

That means anything you say can be dismissed because you made a small error

Your point about Romo having his best year ever because of Murray's success is discarded because you got pawn3d

 

[Nightman]

The object is still producing TD and as long as a rushing TD equals the same as a passing TD this whole debate is meaningless.

I agree. Yards and points don't care or know how they are earned.

 

[Doomsday101]

I agree. Yards and points don't care or know how they are earned.

True, object is to move the ball and put up points and great teams normally can do it both through the air and on the ground.

 

[AsthmaField]

I noted that we went 20-1 in our 21 games with our LOWEST YPC from 1992-95. That is an indisputable fact. Averaging less than 3.0 yards per carry did not stop us from winning. And our opponents' ability to stuff our running game did not help them win.

Those teams (92-95) were unquestionably good running teams. Everybody knows that a young Emmitt Smith behind that OL was hell on wheels. Defenses could slow that running game down but they had to commit significant resources (bodies) to do so. The pounding the defenders took while slowing down Emmitt and the OL also likely took a physical toll by the end of the game.

So I have a couple of questions:

1 - Do you think that defensive coordinators selling out to stop the run created more opportunities in the passing game than if they hadn't focused so much on stopping Emmitt?

2 - Do you think the physical nature of effectively stopping the run game had an effect on the defense by the 4th quarter?

Thanks in advance Adam. I always value your input.

 

[CowboyRoy]

But you made the mistake of saying Romo had a 124 Passer Rating instead of 113(and his playoff Passer Rating was 125, so that may be the source of the confusion)

That means anything you say can be dismissed because you made a small error

Your point about Romo having his best year ever because of Murray's success is discarded because you got pawn3d

LOL..........................are you for real? 113 instead of 124? The whole point was that he lead the league, not what the actual number was. I guess if you cant compete in the argument you nit pick at something else eh? You gave me a good laugh though. Thank you.

 

[dreghorn2]

It's the threat of a run as much as the run.

I can understand all those games we won when we didn't run well but still passed well to get a victory, as mentioned it's the threat, and subsequently the defensive alignments that lead to those stats.

I guarantee you the Cowboys of the 90s don't win as often as they did with Marion Butts or Barry Word at tailback versus Emmitt Smith, and we'll win more this year with Ezekiel Elliot running versus Darius Jackson.

 

[Nightman]

LOL..........................are you for real? 113 instead of 124? The whole point was that he lead the league, not what the actual number was. I guess if you cant compete in the argument you nit pick at something else eh? You gave me a good laugh though. Thank you.

It isn't me saying it.....I am just showing why Adam is dismissing you....you guys seem to be talking past each other....he is the one mocking you for messing up that stat and has fixated on it.....

 

[CowboyRoy]

The actual number is meaningless and whether I was off by 11 points on my guess is inconsequential to the argument. He led the league, end of story, period. And it was directly related to the power run game. Unless he or you think that was a random coincidence.

 

[Nightman]

The actual number is meaningless and whether I was off by 11 points on my guess is inconsequential to the argument. He led the league, end of story, period. And it was directly related to the power run game. Unless he or you think that was a random coincidence.

I was on your side.....but maybe I'm just wasting my time

 

[AdamJT13]

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

I'm not wrong at all, and I have all of the evidence over the past few decades on my side. You have unfounded rhetoric.

 

[AdamJT13]

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

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 --

He led the league in passer rating at 124.

So what facts arent straight? That he led the league with 123 and not 124?

2014 Passer Rating
1.Tony Romo* · DAL113.2

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

 

[AdamJT13]

The object is still producing TD and as long as a rushing TD equals the same as a passing TD this whole debate is meaningless.

So when it's third-and-8, it's just as effective to run the ball as it is to pass the ball?

And when the opponent is facing third-and-10, it's better to stay in the base defense and look for a run or pass than it is to be in the nickel and expect a pass play?

And when you get the ball on your own 15-yard line with 50 seconds left and your're down by 6 points, it's important to stay balanced and run the ball several times to set up a shorter third down?

And when the opponent has the ball at its own 35 with 15 seconds left and you're up by 2 points, there's no reason to think the opponent is going to pass?

Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[AdamJT13]

1 - Do you think that defensive coordinators selling out to stop the run created more opportunities in the passing game than if they hadn't focused so much on stopping Emmitt?

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.

2 - Do you think the physical nature of effectively stopping the run game had an effect on the defense by the 4th quarter?

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.

 

[AsthmaField]

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.

Thanks for answering Adam.

 

[Doomsday101]

So when it's third-and-8, it's just as effective to run the ball as it is to pass the ball?

And when the opponent is facing third-and-10, it's better to stay in the base defense and look for a run or pass than it is to be in the nickel and expect a pass play?

And when you get the ball on your own 15-yard line with 50 seconds left and your're down by 6 points, it's important to stay balanced and run the ball several times to set up a shorter third down?

And when the opponent has the ball at its own 35 with 15 seconds left and you're up by 2 points, there's no reason to think the opponent is going to pass?

Yeah, good luck with that.

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"? Good luck with passing 50 times a game it does not work for this offense. Balance does being able to stay in down and distance favorable to the offense works being able to run the ball down in the red zone when passing lanes become much tighter works. I have never said passing is not important it is and always has been but this notion you have that running game means nothing is total BS. For many teams including teams like Carolina and Seattle the run game is a major part of what they do. Damn you act like the game is only passing then why the hell do teams run as often as they do? Why would any team waste time running if it means so little?
Object is to move the ball and put up points and regardless if it is done predominately through the air or ground is irrelevant.

 

[BlindFaith]

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.

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.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I'm not wrong at all, and I have all of the evidence over the past few decades on my side. You have unfounded rhetoric.

Sure you do. You have stats that show that a good run game does nothing to help the passing game and vice versa. LOL

 

[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.

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.