CHFF: The 400 yard passer

[kramskoi]

Why the change? We’re not sure. But we think it has something to do with modern football psychology. Teams simply rely on the pass too much, and they’re not even aware yet that they’re harming themselves.

We talked about the NFL’s passing co-dependence problem in the off-season: it’s actually resulted in a decline in scoring. Teams scored more when their offenses were more balanced.

At least that’s one theory.

In either case, we do know this: the next time your favorite quarterback starts inching up near that big, round number, he’s probably heading for a loss. And if there is one thing a Troll ought to know, it's that big and round is not always beautiful.






http://coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_3385_Big,_round_and_ugly:_the_400-yard_day.html

 

[Hostile]

I will say this, the winning % graph will not look like that by year's end. At times a big game throwing does equal winning. To deny that is kind of wrong.

Definitely interesting though. I think this is worth noting too.

Tony Romo has gone for over 300 yards 26 times in his career so far and he has a pretty amazing winning % when he does.

2006...3 times, 2-1
2007...7 times, 7-0
2008...6 times, 4-2
2009...8 times, 7-1
2010...2 times, 0-2

That is 20-6 which comes out to 77% winning. That would translate to 12.3 wins per 16 game season if done every time at that frequency.

Nice article. Thanks.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I will say this, the winning % graph will not look like that by year's end. At times a big game throwing does equal winning. To deny that is kind of wrong.

Definitely interesting though. I think this is worth noting too.

Tony Romo has gone for over 300 yards 26 times in his career so far and he has a pretty amazing winning % when he does.

2006...3 times, 2-1
2007...7 times, 7-0
2008...6 times, 4-2
2009...8 times, 7-1
2010...2 times, 0-2

That is 20-6 which comes out to 77% winning. That would translate to 12.3 wins per 16 game season if done every time at that frequency.

Nice article. Thanks.

The question is, what is his winning percentage when he doesn't. What is his overall winning percentage? They could all be at or around 77%.

 

[BrassCowboy]

I will say this, the winning % graph will not look like that by year's end. At times a big game throwing does equal winning. To deny that is kind of wrong.

Definitely interesting though. I think this is worth noting too.

Tony Romo has gone for over 300 yards 26 times in his career so far and he has a pretty amazing winning % when he does.

2006...3 times, 2-1
2007...7 times, 7-0
2008...6 times, 4-2
2009...8 times, 7-1
2010...2 times, 0-2

That is 20-6 which comes out to 77% winning. That would translate to 12.3 wins per 16 game season if done every time at that frequency.

Nice article. Thanks.

wonder how this is in relation to time of possession for us over the same amount of time. My guess on your Tony Romo stat (over 300 yrds 26 times) and teams success at same time is that we still have had a valid running game as well due to our defense keeping opponents off the field allowing for higher score averages and inflated passing numbers.

It is this year where our running game is struggling while still maintaining a high pass yardage % and the results are lower game score average and losses in the process.

things like defense and penalties play a part in this as well, and it is obvious in Cowboys case, but you could never convince me that an all passing team can maintain a level of success needed to win big without needing these other aspects of the team game being perfect. IMO with a more balanced attack, I do believe imperfections can be overcome, but right now we are seeing what mistakes are doing. Look at redzone offense, try to pass too much and you will fail more often than not. A good running game is important down there.

 

[AdamJT13]

CHFF is one of the most clueless sites out there. It frequently takes a statistic and completely twists it into something it's not, then comes up with a conclusion that is downright laughable.

Believe it or not, there were almost 30 percent more touchdown PASSES per game in 1948 than there were in 2008, the highest-scoring recent season. There were almost as many passing attempts per game back then -- 26 per team, compared to 32 in 2008 -- and their touchdown percentage was much higher (6.3 to 3.9). Their yards per completion was higher (13.9 to 11.4), and their interception rate was much higher (7.4 to 2.8). They didn't pass quite as much as teams do nowadays, but they certainly weren't afraid to sling it around, and a lot more happened -- good and bad -- when they passed back then than in today's controlled passing offenses.

By the way, there were 35 percent more rushing touchdowns per game in 1948, 60 percent more punt return TDs per game, 31 percent more kickoff return TDs per game and 94 percent more fumble return TDs per game (to go with twice as many fumbles per game).

The higher-scoring days of yesteryear weren't because teams ran the ball more, it was because they were less careful with the ball -- going for big plays in the passing game, committing/creating far more turnovers -- and had more possessions, shorter possessions and almost certainly better average starting field position. Thinking teams would score more these days -- against modern defenses -- if they ran it 60 percent of the time is simply asinine.

 

[Idgit]

That is 20-6 which comes out to 77% winning. That would translate to 12.3 wins per 16 game season if done every time at that frequency.

We should totally do this, then. Have Romo throw for 300+ each week.

 

[Tricericon]

CHFF is one of the most clueless sites out there. It frequently takes a statistic and completely twists it into something it's not, then comes up with a conclusion that is downright laughable.

Believe it or not, there were almost 30 percent more touchdown PASSES per game in 1948 than there were in 2008, the highest-scoring recent season. There were almost as many passing attempts per game back then -- 26 per team, compared to 32 in 2008 -- and their touchdown percentage was much higher (6.3 to 3.9). Their yards per completion was higher (13.9 to 11.4), and their interception rate was much higher (7.4 to 2.8). They didn't pass quite as much as teams do nowadays, but they certainly weren't afraid to sling it around, and a lot more happened -- good and bad -- when they passed back then than in today's controlled passing offenses.

By the way, there were 35 percent more rushing touchdowns per game in 1948, 60 percent more punt return TDs per game, 31 percent more kickoff return TDs per game and 94 percent more fumble return TDs per game (to go with twice as many fumbles per game).

The higher-scoring days of yesteryear weren't because teams ran the ball more, it was because they were less careful with the ball -- going for big plays in the passing game, committing/creating far more turnovers -- and had more possessions, shorter possessions and almost certainly better average starting field position. Thinking teams would score more these days -- against modern defenses -- if they ran it 60 percent of the time is simply asinine.

Exactly. CHFF will note a statistic, then make like Jim Marshall and run in completely the wrong direction with their conclusion.

The 40s and 50s still had teams like the New York Yanks; it was kind of like college football in that if you put a crummy team up against a good team, the good team got to pick their score. That's why that scoring stat is what it is.

Nowadays the "balanced" teams have a higher winning percentage than the "passing" teams because teams run when they are ahead and throw when they are behind. Believe it or not, teams that are ahead win more often than teams that are behind.

 

[kramskoi]

I will say this, the winning % graph will not look like that by year's end. At times a big game throwing does equal winning. To deny that is kind of wrong.

Definitely interesting though. I think this is worth noting too.

Tony Romo has gone for over 300 yards 26 times in his career so far and he has a pretty amazing winning % when he does.

2006...3 times, 2-1
2007...7 times, 7-0
2008...6 times, 4-2
2009...8 times, 7-1
2010...2 times, 0-2

That is 20-6 which comes out to 77% winning. That would translate to 12.3 wins per 16 game season if done every time at that frequency.

Nice article. Thanks.

...if we could just keep him around 30-35 attempts...he can still deliver 300+ at that range...he is 1-6 when he's at or above 45 attempts...and the 1 was the 5 pick Buffalo win a few years ago...