Broaddus Tweets: Ratliff will be 3, Hatcher the 1

[TheSport78]

Statistical analysis after statistical analysis has shown that having a good running game does NOT contribute winning in the NFL. How can people continue to ignore this?

You could ask the Bills (4th in the league), Chiefs (5th), Giants, (7th), Panthers (T-8th), Titans (T-8th), Eagles (T-8th), what having good running games did for them. Those teams, which comprised 6 of the top 10 running teams in the NFL, won an average of less than 6 games in 2012.

Balance is key in my opinion.

 

[theogt]

Balance is key in my opinion.

Passing well is the only thing that really matters. And running better doesn't impact whether a team passes better.

 

[TheSport78]

Passing well is the only thing that really matters. And running better doesn't impact whether a team passes better.

Okay, cool.

 

[percyhoward]

Passing well is the only thing that really matters. And running better doesn't impact whether a team passes better.

Five of the top nine highest-scoring teams (per drive) made up the top 5 in red zone TD percentage, so there is a clear connection between red zone TD and scoring.

All else being equal, teams that run well in the red zone will have more TD than teams that don't.

 

[TheSport78]

Five of the top nine highest-scoring teams (per drive) made up the top 5 in red zone TD percentage, so there is a clear connection between red zone TD and scoring.

All else being equal, teams that run well in the red zone will have more TD than teams that don't.

Impossible. Posters on this forum have confirmed that you do not need to run the ball in the NFL to be successful.

Nice stat, by the way.

 

[percyhoward]

Impossible. Posters on this forum have confirmed that you do not need to run the ball in the NFL to be successful.

Obviously there are some teams that have been successful without being able to run the ball. It's a real leap from that to "passing is all that really matters."

 

[TheSport78]

Obviously there are some teams that have been successful without being able to run the ball. It's a real leap from that to "passing is all that really matters."

Totally agree

 

[theogt]

Five of the top nine highest-scoring teams (per drive) made up the top 5 in red zone TD percentage, so there is a clear connection between red zone TD and scoring.

All else being equal, teams that run well in the red zone will have more TD than teams that don't.

What is "run[ning] well in the red zone"? Scoring a lot of red zone TDs? High YPA? If it's the former, then it's a tautology and is meaningless.

It doesn't really matter how you cherry pick statistics, if it doesn't result in more wins, it's not convincing.

 

[bayeslife]

This draft was horrendous considering how deep it was in the trenches, and the fact we only addressed it once.

We will not win anything until the offensive and defensive lines are a focus.

This argument holds absolutely 0 weight considering we have teams like the Packers, Colts, Saints who have won Superbowls.

Will it help? Absolutely. But it does not eliminate our chances whatsoever.

 

[Blue Eyed Devil]

This argument holds absolutely 0 weight considering we have teams like the Packers, Colts, Saints who have won Superbowls.

Will it help? Absolutely. But it does not eliminate our chances whatsoever.

Those teams had guys like Jeff Saturday, Scott Wells, Carl Nicks, Jermon Bushrod, and Jabari Greer.

Ours has Phil Costa, Doug Free, and "El Matador" Bernie.

 

[Keystone_Heavy]

Five of the top nine highest-scoring teams (per drive) made up the top 5 in red zone TD percentage, so there is a clear connection between red zone TD and scoring.

All else being equal, teams that run well in the red zone will have more TD than teams that don't.

Yes, but you don't really establish that there is a clear connection between running well in the red zone and scoring TDs in the red zone. Or does passing reign supreme there too? The "all things being equal..." line if pretty presumptuous.

Thats a serious question that I would like to know the answer to. I know that there is virtually no correlation between rushing yards and scoring points or winning. But I don't know where to find a breakdown of teams' redzone plays, or what kind of plays they score on.

 

[Szczepanik]

Pretty sure Hatcher will look like a different player after Marinelli gets his hold on him.

 

[percyhoward]

What is "run[ning] well in the red zone"?

Running for positive yardage, first downs, and touchdowns inside the opponent's 20-yard line.

Like passing effectively, but without the ball ever being in the air.

 

[percyhoward]

Yes, but you don't really establish that there is a clear connection between running well in the red zone and scoring TDs in the red zone.

If I only have one pass play that works in the red zone, don't I improve my chances of scoring if I find another pass play that works in the red zone?

Would removing the word "pass" from that question change the answer at all?

 

[theogt]

Running for positive yardage, first downs, and touchdowns inside the opponent's 20-yard line.

Like passing effectively, but without the ball ever being in the air.

Sorry, it sounded like you had actually quantified and ranked something. I didn't realize your post was just conjecture.

 

[TheFinisher]

This argument holds absolutely 0 weight considering we have teams like the Packers, Colts, Saints who have won Superbowls.

Will it help? Absolutely. But it does not eliminate our chances whatsoever.

The Saints were 7th in the NFL in rushing yards the year they won the SB with over 2100 yards, and 3rd in rushing TDs with 21.

The Colts were 6th in the NFL in rushing TDs in 06 with 17 and compiled nearly 1800 yards on the ground.

Even the Packers who were the most pass heavy team to win in the last 10 years, ran for over 1600 yards and ranked 18th in rushing TDs the year they won.

In comparison, Dallas was 31st in rushing yards in 2012 with 1260 and 28th in rushing TDs with 8.

Also keep in mind that the Colts and Packers had the hottest QBs in the league playing for them the years they won... dominant QB play.

So while the Colts and Packers have proven you don't need a top 10 running game to win the SB if you have a QB playing out of his mind, you still need to have a better running game than Dallas has had the past 2 seasons.

And studying how other teams have won is nice, but every team is in a different situation with different personell... so it's flawed to say "team x won this way, let's copy what they did".

What we should all agree on is that Dallas is a better team when we can run the football, and that's when Romo is at his best. We win more games with a running game vs when we are forced to pass 40-50 times.

 

[TheSport78]

The Saints were 7th in the NFL in rushing yards the year they won the SB with over 2100 yards, and 3rd in rushing TDs with 21.

The Colts were 6th in the NFL in rushing TDs in 06 with 17 and compiled nearly 1800 yards on the ground.

Even the Packers who were the most pass heavy team to win in the last 10 years, ran for over 1600 yards and ranked 18th in rushing TDs the year they won.

In comparison, Dallas was 31st in rushing yards in 2012 with 1260 and 28th in rushing TDs with 8.

Also keep in mind that the Colts and Packers had the hottest QBs in the league playing for them the years they won... dominant QB play.

So while the Colts and Packers have proven you don't need a top 10 running game to win the SB if you have a QB playing out of his mind, you still need to have a better running game than Dallas has had the past 2 seasons.

And studying how other teams have won is nice, but every team is in a different situation with different personell... so it's flawed to say "team x won this way, let's copy what they did".

What we should all agree on is that Dallas is a better team when we can run the football, and that's when Romo is at his best. We win more games with a running game vs when we are forced to pass 40-50 times.

Nope. It's been confirmed by posters on here that you don't need to run the ball to be successful.

Let's just keep putting ridiculous amounts of pressure on Romo to carry the entire team. GENIUS!

Seriously though, good points.

 

[percyhoward]

Sorry, it sounded like you had actually quantified and ranked something. I didn't realize your post was just conjecture.

It was lazy of me to use common sense as shorthand there.

 

[percyhoward]

Running the ball effectively in the red zone can make a difference. These numbers are from 2011.

Red Zone Passer Rating
Romo 105.9
Eli 75.9

Red Zone Rushing TD
Dallas 4
Giants 18

FG attempts
Dallas 7th
Giants 28th

Red Zone Scoring Percentage
Dallas 20th
Giants 9th

Scoring
Dallas 15th
Giants 7th

 

[Idgit]

...What we should all agree on is that Dallas is a better team when we can run the football, and that's when Romo is at his best. We win more games with a running game vs when we are forced to pass 40-50 times.

I guess, if I could just pick, I'd prefer we were good at running the football rather than bad, but, other than the short yardage and goal line situations, running the ball effectively simply doesn't correlate with winning. So, it it doesn't make you more likely to win, getting better at it doesn't really help you. It may sound counterintuitive, but it's been pretty well established statistically that it's the case.

Your example above is one of the reasons why it seems counterintuitive. If you're forced to pass the ball 40-50 times in a game, it's because you're playing from behind and taking low-percentage chances that contribute to you getting beat. It's about passing effectiveness, not passing attempts.