Bob's Blog - Live from Lewisville

[waving monkey]

Saturday, August 02, 2014
Issues In Oxnard: Running The Ball


Back in January, when Scott Linehan was being hired by the Cowboys, I wrote the following:

Linehan is a coach who has his plusses and minuses of course. Every coach - especially those who are easily available at this time of year - are not going to have such a glowing resume that we run to his arms in January and he comes in and fixes everything. Rob Ryan had a list of doubters who said he had never won anything. Monte Kiffin's doubts were based on his last several years of work. Bill Callahan still had to answer for Super Bowl 37 and his very odd relationship with players. Rod Marinelli coached a team that went 0-16. The list goes on and on.

Well, in Linehan's case, my initial concerns are based completely on my over-riding issues with the offense. I have long thought that the Cowboys offense is too finesse and does not value the ability to (at times) bully the defense into submission with clock-controlling, demoralizing, and punishing football that shows the opponent that this is going to be a very long day. I think that it seldom hurts to defend against the Cowboys and that they run only as an afterthought.
Now, I do not believe in the wishbone, the veer, or any ridiculous running to extreme that is sure to anger any advanced metrics folks. In fact, I consider myself one of them. But, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the sport of football is one of disposition and attitude at its core. You cannot watch the Seahawks and 49ers take over the NFC with this bully-football and ignore it. There has to be some recognition that physicality is still alive and well in the NFL and it is still a blocking and tackling league.
I am sorry, but dropping back into shotgun and pass protection play after play is like a boxer who is never allowed to attack. He must simply accept punishment as an offensive lineman and never dish it out. I don't like that and I never have. I also don't believe that many great coaches believe in it either. Yes, this is a passing league and the numbers have never been higher. So, why then, did Seattle and San Francisco take over the conference without a QB who can throw for 200 yards on a regular basis?

link/http://sturminator.blogspot.in/2014/08/issues-in-oxnard-running-ball.html

 

[Brooksey]

Interesting read.

 

[noshame]

If we ran the ball more we would have made the play-offs last year. I hope we learned.

 

[TwoDeep3]

If we ran the ball more we would have made the play-offs last year. I hope we learned.

So much of what fans think is folly. We see a sliver of the game, have even less than a rudimentary grasp of how the game is played and why things are done. In the end even the smartest of us still doesn't have the credentials to speak with any authority on what sho9uld be done.

However, running the ball more is clearly a strategy which is based on sound football basics. It is so fundamental to this game, and this team even fans see the wisdom and benefit of this tactic.

 

[CCBoy]

Hey, I still like the gams...

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Sturm and I are very much on the same wavelength.


The advanced metrics do support running the ball more, you just need to know where to look. The problem with the ‘passing game is everything people’ is I think even when they are faced with evidence of the importance of the running game outside of running out the clock, they would rather stick to the narrative of ‘you win when you pass it well, and you run when you are winning.’


Defensive players have historically been more than twice as likely to get injured than offensive players. The more you throw, the longer your defense will be on the field. Even if you score tons of points. So while you can win in the regular season throwing the ball a lot, come December your defense may be depleted. Forget the Cowboys’ injuries since 2011…the Patriots have seen a giant increase in defensive players injuries since 2007…when they went to being an exclusively shotgun, pass happy offense.


Then the issue becomes that when you get into the playoffs, the weather can greatly impact your ability to throw the ball. Particularly if the wind picks up. So, if you play a team that is healthy on defense with a decent offense to attack your injury depleted defense and you can’t throw the ball because of the wind…you’re screwed.


Lastly, if you look at the ridiculous records of coaches like Parcells, Cowher, Gibbs, and even our own Jason Garrett when they run the ball 20+ times a game, it should show something. I believe Parcells is something like 88-1 when they get 20+ carries, Cowher something like 82-0, Gibbs something like 98-0 and Garrett being undefeated.


The issue here is that the statisticians wrongfully and blindly claim that those numbers are just causation issues. While there are some causation flaws that have to be *accounted* for, the numbers are simply too extreme on BOTH ends to ignore.


20 carries in a game is not a lot of times to run the ball. If you run the ball 20 times for the entire game…you’re likely going to have thrown the ball *40* times in that game. Is a 20:40 ratio really ‘grounding and pounding’ the ball? Is it really ‘just running the ball run out the clock?’


On the other end of the spectrum, the win loss records of these coaches is at an even more extreme.


What the metrics really say is that you have to account for the times you don’t get into a big deficit early on and the times when your offense simply can’t move the ball. BUT, outside of those instances…it is CRITICAL to stick to the run to a degree. All 20 carries in a game equates to is 5 carries a quarter. And typically offenses run 15 plays per quarter (still a 2:1 pass to run ratio).


The passing game has more efficiency as a whole in the *end*. But, it has a much larger deviation in results. Your chance of having a massively negative play on a passing play (i.e. strip fumble, interception, sack, incomplete pass, holding call) is far greater than in a running play where usually they will get at least 1 yard and not turn the ball over. You have to mix in enough run to narrow the deviation in results per play, keep your defense off the field and to win games.






YR

 

[CCBoy]

On a simple level, to be effective, a defense must continually be attacking in nature.

Once attacking, the defensive measure of redirection direction and velocity becomes much easier in a somewhat defensive posture and that attacks in a countering attack manner.

It takes a very disciplined group to act in coordination when attacked. And why the offensive line is both talented, but committed to each other...both on and off the field.

 

[burmafrd]

Sturm and I are very much on the same wavelength.


The advanced metrics do support running the ball more, you just need to know where to look. The problem with the ‘passing game is everything people’ is I think even when they are faced with evidence of the importance of the running game outside of running out the clock, they would rather stick to the narrative of ‘you win when you pass it well, and you run when you are winning.’


Defensive players have historically been more than twice as likely to get injured than offensive players. The more you throw, the longer your defense will be on the field. Even if you score tons of points. So while you can win in the regular season throwing the ball a lot, come December your defense may be depleted. Forget the Cowboys’ injuries since 2011…the Patriots have seen a giant increase in defensive players injuries since 2007…when they went to being an exclusively shotgun, pass happy offense.


Then the issue becomes that when you get into the playoffs, the weather can greatly impact your ability to throw the ball. Particularly if the wind picks up. So, if you play a team that is healthy on defense with a decent offense to attack your injury depleted defense and you can’t throw the ball because of the wind…you’re screwed.


Lastly, if you look at the ridiculous records of coaches like Parcells, Cowher, Gibbs, and even our own Jason Garrett when they run the ball 20+ times a game, it should show something. I believe Parcells is something like 88-1 when they get 20+ carries, Cowher something like 82-0, Gibbs something like 98-0 and Garrett being undefeated.


The issue here is that the statisticians wrongfully and blindly claim that those numbers are just causation issues. While there are some causation flaws that have to be *accounted* for, the numbers are simply too extreme on BOTH ends to ignore.


20 carries in a game is not a lot of times to run the ball. If you run the ball 20 times for the entire game…you’re likely going to have thrown the ball *40* times in that game. Is a 20:40 ratio really ‘grounding and pounding’ the ball? Is it really ‘just running the ball run out the clock?’


On the other end of the spectrum, the win loss records of these coaches is at an even more extreme.


What the metrics really say is that you have to account for the times you don’t get into a big deficit early on and the times when your offense simply can’t move the ball. BUT, outside of those instances…it is CRITICAL to stick to the run to a degree. All 20 carries in a game equates to is 5 carries a quarter. And typically offenses run 15 plays per quarter (still a 2:1 pass to run ratio).


The passing game has more efficiency as a whole in the *end*. But, it has a much larger deviation in results. Your chance of having a massively negative play on a passing play (i.e. strip fumble, interception, sack, incomplete pass, holding call) is far greater than in a running play where usually they will get at least 1 yard and not turn the ball over. You have to mix in enough run to narrow the deviation in results per play, keep your defense off the field and to win games.






YR

the pass only fanatics are like the Romo haters: logic and common sense mean nothing; stats mean nothing; their Mark 1 eyeball means everything.

 

[xwalker]

Sturm and I are very much on the same wavelength.


The advanced metrics do support running the ball more, you just need to know where to look. The problem with the ‘passing game is everything people’ is I think even when they are faced with evidence of the importance of the running game outside of running out the clock, they would rather stick to the narrative of ‘you win when you pass it well, and you run when you are winning.’


Defensive players have historically been more than twice as likely to get injured than offensive players. The more you throw, the longer your defense will be on the field. Even if you score tons of points. So while you can win in the regular season throwing the ball a lot, come December your defense may be depleted. Forget the Cowboys’ injuries since 2011…the Patriots have seen a giant increase in defensive players injuries since 2007…when they went to being an exclusively shotgun, pass happy offense.


Then the issue becomes that when you get into the playoffs, the weather can greatly impact your ability to throw the ball. Particularly if the wind picks up. So, if you play a team that is healthy on defense with a decent offense to attack your injury depleted defense and you can’t throw the ball because of the wind…you’re screwed.


Lastly, if you look at the ridiculous records of coaches like Parcells, Cowher, Gibbs, and even our own Jason Garrett when they run the ball 20+ times a game, it should show something. I believe Parcells is something like 88-1 when they get 20+ carries, Cowher something like 82-0, Gibbs something like 98-0 and Garrett being undefeated.


The issue here is that the statisticians wrongfully and blindly claim that those numbers are just causation issues. While there are some causation flaws that have to be *accounted* for, the numbers are simply too extreme on BOTH ends to ignore.


20 carries in a game is not a lot of times to run the ball. If you run the ball 20 times for the entire game…you’re likely going to have thrown the ball *40* times in that game. Is a 20:40 ratio really ‘grounding and pounding’ the ball? Is it really ‘just running the ball run out the clock?’


On the other end of the spectrum, the win loss records of these coaches is at an even more extreme.


What the metrics really say is that you have to account for the times you don’t get into a big deficit early on and the times when your offense simply can’t move the ball. BUT, outside of those instances…it is CRITICAL to stick to the run to a degree. All 20 carries in a game equates to is 5 carries a quarter. And typically offenses run 15 plays per quarter (still a 2:1 pass to run ratio).


The passing game has more efficiency as a whole in the *end*. But, it has a much larger deviation in results. Your chance of having a massively negative play on a passing play (i.e. strip fumble, interception, sack, incomplete pass, holding call) is far greater than in a running play where usually they will get at least 1 yard and not turn the ball over. You have to mix in enough run to narrow the deviation in results per play, keep your defense off the field and to win games.

YR

Yes, the "Passing Efficiency correlates to winning" concept is flawed in terms of how it relates to running the ball. Just because they can't correlated rushing yards to winning does not indicate that having a quality rushing attack is not important.

Two different teams could have the same rushing yardage in a game, but the opposing defense played 8 men in the box against one team and 7 men in the box against the other team. That does not show up in the simple statistics. Obviously, the team that was defended by 8 men in the box has an advantage in the passing game.

There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics - Mark Twain (Benjamin Disraeli)

 

[jterrell]

Yes, the "Passing Efficiency correlates to winning" concept is flawed in terms of how it relates to running the ball. Just because they can't correlated rushing yards to winning does not indicate that having a quality rushing attack is not important.

Two different teams could have the same rushing yardage in a game, but the opposing defense played 8 men in the box against one team and 7 men in the box against the other team. That does not show up in the simple statistics. Obviously, the team that was defended by 8 men in the box has an advantage in the passing game.

There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics - Mark Twain (Benjamin Disraeli)

Obviously you'd rather run well then run poorly.
And you'd rather run for first downs and to the end zone than not.

After that it is all just talk and means nothing. Sturm talks about this a lot and EVERY bit of his data disproves him.
Old man football wisdom does agree but the actual data he provides does NOT agree.

Sturm's own data shows when they ran REALLY well they lost games and sucked.

The thought we'd be great if we ran is almost wholly refuted by the data above.

He talks about the 4 game stretch of poor running --we went 3-1 for cripessake.
Then to close the year we were great running the ball, best in the league... except we lost all but 1 game of that stretch.

The last 8 games of the year we averaged more than 5 yards per carry 4 times. We went 1-3.
We averaged less than 5 yards per carry 4 times and went 3-1. The sole loss being absent Tony Romo.

This article like all of Sturm's rants on this particular subject have become a book he writes in his mind and then he throws data out there that doesn't even support it.

It doesn't matter one bit how you win games, it just matters that you do. If you win with Brady throwing 60 times, great. If you win with Russell Wilson rushing for 100 and passing for 180, great. If you win with Ray Lewis and the Ravens defense dominating while the offense grinds out under 200 yards total offense, great.

 

[percyhoward]

A physical team has a few attributes that are key for me. The most significant is separating the runs down to those that are not tricks. I think shotgun runs are finesse runs and work primarily because in pre-snap you have the defense thinking pass.

Well, obviously. But that doesn't mean all runs from "22" personnel with the QB under center are power runs, and it doesn't mean that when you run with QB under center you're always running it down their throats. Some of those runs may be tosses or bootlegs. You didn't account for that in 2010, and it led you to the faulty conclusion that Garrett's practices in pads were responsible for increase in the yards per carry. The real reason for the increase was trick plays after all.

I don't know if you've looked into runs by direction in 2013, but no team ran up the middle less than the Cowboys. You don't go into the season planning to have that kind of imbalance. Also, the per-carry average doesn't show the problems we had in certain situations. We ranked 27th in first down percentage on 3rd-and-2 or more. We were 19th in rushing first downs in the red zone.

Sure, the running game has improved, and should improve even more. But we don't just need to run more, we need to run better.

On the other hand, if you consider the lack of creativity and insistence on getting the ball to Dez Bryant, we can look on the bright side and imagine Linehan bringing all of his tricks on how to use Megatron and his mates to create match ups around the field and get his monster the ball at any and all times.

We'll find out how much of that was creativity, and how much was simply taking more risks.

Johnson (w/Linehan as OC)
446 of 760 7245 yd 50 td 36 int 92.9

Bryant
293 of 464 4104 yd 40 td 10 int 111.3

 

[percyhoward]

Sturm's own data shows when they ran REALLY well they lost games and sucked.

You would think that someone who considers himself an "advanced metrics" guy would use a metric that correlates to winning, and yards per carry sure doesn't.

 

[Frosty]

There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics - Mark Twain (Benjamin Disraeli)

Awesome Quote...LOL

 

[BAT]

Interesting read.

Witten interview was very good as well.

 

[Rockport]

I've been saying this for years.

 

[Bullflop]

I feel that the tendency to overplay the pass on offense in the past was at somewhat, although not enirely, excuseable when we were stymied with an OL that was incapable of run blocking worth two cents. This was less the case as the year went on in 2013 when our OL limitations were far less obvious.

I would hope Linehan keeps his word about his utterances that it's his intention to assert our OL strength in the running game with more abandon than what we had in the past. We'll see how serious he was when he made that claim. He's supposed to have full authority to operate the offense as he sees fit, according to what's been reported.

As long as the offense is able to move the ball as well as the OL talent indicates it should, I'd avoid nitpicking too much about the number of running plays being called compared to the passes. Offensive efficiency, quality of play and points scored come first.

Hopefully, the defense will improve enough to carry their weight reasonably well. I'm optimistic it'll improve. How much remains questionable but with less injuries to hamper the D than last year, I'd venture to guess noticeable improvement is likely.

 

[burmafrd]

sturm is one of the few that really know what they are talking about and is not writing puff pieces. Only those who slobber all over PFF and that garbage do not get the obvious: if you can run well that really helps you win games.

 

[percyhoward]

sturm is one of the few that really know what they are talking about and is not writing puff pieces. Only those who slobber all over PFF and that garbage do not get the obvious: if you can run well that really helps you win games.

Sturm is a radio personality trying to fill a blog with content. He's using a stat (yards per carry) that doesn't generally correlate to wins in the NFL, and didn't lead to wins in the games he mentions. It's like last year when he tried to say Romo's low YPA kept the Cowboys out of the playoffs, when Brady, Luck, and Newton all had lower YPA and had their teams in the playoffs at the time.

Of course, the blanket statement that "running isn't important" doesn't make any sense, but you can hardly prove it by pointing to great rushing performances in losses. My best comeback to those who say running isn't important is, explain how the Vikings made the playoffs in 2012 with the 25th-ranked pass defense and Christian Ponder at quarterback.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

You would think that someone who considers himself an "advanced metrics" guy would use a metric that correlates to winning, and yards per carry sure doesn't.

I agree.

When we ran it well and lost, we didn't have more than 20 carries.

That was understandable in the Chicago and New Orleans losses as the defense got them in a deficit. But, it was not acceptable in the Green Bay game and our unwillingness to stick to the run cost us the game.



YR

 

[CCBoy]

Sturm is a radio personality trying to fill a blog with content. He's using a stat (yards per carry) that doesn't generally correlate to wins in the NFL, and didn't lead to wins in the games he mentions. It's like last year when he tried to say Romo's low YPA kept the Cowboys out of the playoffs, when Brady, Luck, and Newton all had lower YPA and had their teams in the playoffs at the time.

Of course, the blanket statement that "running isn't important" doesn't make any sense, but you can hardly prove it by pointing to great rushing performances in losses. My best comeback to those who say running isn't important is, explain how the Vikings made the playoffs in 2012 with the 25th-ranked pass defense and Christian Ponder at quarterback.

Percy, I relate, usually, to a National or World view on principals applied...but real life in my sights.

To see the comment, and determined support of a it doesn't matter, just and end result view. Well, it makes me sick.

I see, on principal, the door to the devil, looking at a Child Care Agency. Then telling it's worker, that they are limited to what they are supposed to be doing and the integrity of being a member of the organization. Belzebob points at the 73 children who were sent back into abusive and dangerous homes, with pictures of injury and bruises among broken bones amidst pleas and even anger from neighbors and outside family members, but were ignored due to statistical limitations...and were murdered by the supposed people to protect their fragile lives. Those children, not system failures, but the devil described as pointing to the high need that the Children's Care Agency is set up to meet. Justifying their efforts, despite the deaths of a large number of children.

I look out at the Gaza, where an attempt to remove dangers, escalated to targeting US built hospitals and refuges as the final singe to send a message along with the removal of tunnels that cross into foreign territory. Those again just returning to statistics that were designed for pointing towards dysfunction. And just to present an 'alternate' view, not being the failure pointed out...being seen as success in comparison. Simply, that is not true. Only avoidance of the real concerns for failures. Once removed from view, the only real thing that is breached is a self fulfilling prophecy in support of an altered view from the start.

That is not what is involved with Bob Sturm. He is an entertaining author who does provide enjoyment and satisfaction in how he views the struggles and human side of the game. Some of his views does touch upon the human side of the sport, and the satisfaction that achievements through adversity do bring. Not the statistical relevance that give rise to a privileged place for a 'sophisticate' vantage to talk down upon a fan from. Ridicule, and then insult with a narrowly described potential for application.

That isn't what you do, Percy, as you feet also, the roots of the game that involves multi-dimensions and a creative plane that involves competition, challenge, and opportunities not restricted to a statistically limited corner of applications. Life still retains the arenas where a punch in the face is involved, and when that is attempted to be removed with a self - supporting narrowing of view, well, the nature of the sport is removed as well.

The love of the realities of sport, has aleady enough limiting factors such as referees bringing team biases into games. The turning away of official NFL support, from a uniform enforcement for all teams. A media that doesn't attempt to present a respectful view and given to all participants, unless they can on occasion look grand and justify in limited comparison, present something of soundness and actually appreciated by a long suffering fan. The arrogance of team players and even criminality that is defiantly shown through the league, despite intense knowledge by both the league and fans. Band aide fixes are meant to protect massive cash flows as well as the media generated fabricated elements won through cash support of the business side of the NFL.

Focus of intention again returns to the organization justifying itself and not the entire picture of what is being done with a social responsibility at the cruxt, not side result.

I can remember watching football as a youth, and saw the intensity playing out on the field, but the support was real and based upon the real sacrifices and challenges occurring on the field. Today, after a long and television time out, I get to hear a pair of announcers talk badly about players and teams. Then the referees look the other way as one team is given advantages to form a new element of achievement.

A player is injured and down on the carpet, and fans of the home stadium erupt in cheer.

Both running and passing are parts of football. It creates enough of a physical challenge that gives real life to the challenge and sporting event involved. This isn't tennis, where extreme and refined technique carries a set and match. This is football, where a common man can join another common man, and challenge another team with real world abilities. Not refined technique. Technique is very important, but it's refinement doesn't additionally change the nature of the game.

That common man still must fight to overcome adversity, and actually be challenged on a base level of sportsmanship...or simply, the game is changed and the end results are altered as well. An insight to survive and meet extremes but in a sporting environment, is lost...and privileges in execution remain. Both running the ball and passing the ball provide excitement, and satisfaction to a fan...who in the final analysis, needs to be able to sense the full spectrum in the sport. That, or watch a satisfying soap opera brought into his own neighborhood and the excitement of only a special event...not football.

I'm a purist at heart...as I still give respects to that youth in military clothing appropriate to the time, stands on Normandy beach with a flag on a pole in one hand, and a salute with his other hand. That braves those elements to give of his own love to those fallen from our country, and that included his own relatives in sacrifice. Not giving up until his own muscles start to cramp and his legs diminish to buckling. Falling into his Father's arms with tears in his eyes.

There is a ton of misdirected support in the game today, as well as in many fans also. But I, at least, appreciate the intensity that is reflected in challenge, both through the quick hitting elements of passing, and in the physicality of a run. They both are needed...and not a detached and statistical reference, if it doesn't touch more on the level of play. That can be structured in comparison, if one doesn't first attempt to justify one aspect of theoretical structuring. The game is affected and reflects in statistics, not played there.

Myself, I'll just see through those who don't have the time or reward enough to accept sacrifices and real function of those outside of their own personal experiences, and self rewards. I love the game of football, and as far as the kids? Those who died due to system self preservations, I have a tear in my own eyes. And the young man on Normandy, stand tall young man. You give respect to those deserving it in the fullest...and I'll always carry a tear for them.

If anyone needs a decoder ring for this posting...just keep that information to yourself!!