Detroit has the best run defense in the NFL

[xwalker]

I'm not misleading anyone, and I've made the SAME definitive statement over and over and over for years and years -- since long before this message board even existed: The key to winning games in the NFL is passing the ball more effectively than your opponent. I have a specific stat that I like to use and which I think is the most correlative (net passing yards minus 50 yards per interception, divided by pass plays including sacks), but other comprehensive passing stats are highly correlative as well. Along with that, how well you run or stop the run within a game (as measured by YPC) has very little to do with who wins or loses. As a corollary, how well you run or stop the run (as measured by YPC) has a low correlation with how well you're able to pass or stop the pass in that game.

Note that NONE of that has anything to do with how often you run or pass, or how often your opponent runs or passes. Whether you run it 15 times or 50, and whether you pass it 15 times or 50, you still need to pass it better than your opponent to win in the vast majority of games. If you're more successful passing 40 times than you are passing 20 times, then do that, or vice-versa, but whatever maximizes your passing efficiency is what will help you win.

Also note that this refers to BOTH sides of the ball, which seems to be ignored by many people who refuse to accept it as fact. No matter what you do on offense, if your defense allows the opponent to pass the ball better than you do, you'll lose the vast majority of games.

Still confused?

I was not confused at any point in time.

What you stated above proves nothing about the running game other than the fact that you can't characterize the importance of the running game with the simple statistics that are available. Defenses adjust to limit rushing yardage at the expense of making themselves more vulnerable to the pass with tactics such as 8 men in the box vs 7 men in the box.

Also note that this refers to BOTH sides of the ball, which seems to be ignored by many people who refuse to accept it as fact. No matter what you do on offense, if your defense allows the opponent to pass the ball better than you do, you'll lose the vast majority of games.
I have no disagreement with this and I would expect this to be true without looking at the stats; however, it does nothing to disprove the importance of a strong rushing threat.

We know that defenses will play 7 men in the box against a weak rushing threat and 8 men in the box against a strong rushing threat. Obviously, this is a simplistic example, but it is very descriptive of how the passing game benefits from a strong rushing threat. Two teams can both have 50 yards rushing which is what you see in the statistics; however, the one that did it against 8 men in the box accomplished more than the one that did it against 7 men the box but you can't see that with the simple statistics that are available. The one that did it against 8 men in the box most likely had the better passing statistics if all else was equal.

 

[AdamJT13]

What you stated above proves nothing about the running game other than the fact that you can't characterize the importance of the running game with the simple statistics that are available.

Whoever said it did? The point is that your YPC on offense or YPC allowed on defense (or any other cumulative measurement of rushing within a game) are virtually irrelevant.

I have no disagreement with this and I would expect this to be true without looking at the stats; however, it does nothing to disprove the importance of a strong rushing threat.

Let me ask again: Which games this season did we have a "strong rushing threat" and which games did we not? Which games did we face a "strong rushing threat" and which games did we not?

We know that defenses will play 7 men in the box against a weak rushing threat and 8 men in the box against a strong rushing threat. Obviously, this is a simplistic example, but it is very descriptive of how the passing game benefits from a strong rushing threat. Two teams can both have 50 yards rushing which is what you see in the statistics; however, the one that did it against 8 men in the box accomplished more than the one that did it against 7 men the box but you can't see that with the simple statistics that are available. The one that did it against 8 men in the box most likely had the better passing statistics if all else was equal.

That's sort of the point: Loading up with eight men in the box to stop the run is counterproductive if it hurts your pass defense. Pass defense is much more important. And we all know the theories about how teams SHOULD be more successful against eight in the box, but there is no proof that those theories hold true within the context of a single game or how often, and there is no proof that the difference is more than marginal.

Plus, you'd have to define a "strong rushing threat" at some point in order to examine this theory, but you have not. (Or cannot?) It obviously cannot be based on statistics, so you'll have to come up with something else.

But like you said, this whole theory has nothing to do with anything I've stated about the importance of passing success vs. rushing success.

 

[xwalker]

.....

xwalker said:
What you stated above proves nothing about the running game other than the fact that you can't characterize the importance of the running game with the simple statistics that are available.
AdamJT13 said:
Whoever said it did? The point is that your YPC on offense or YPC allowed on defense (or any other cumulative measurement of rushing within a game) are virtually irrelevant.
You did. You've only started making it obvious that it's the measurement YPC is is meaningless once I questioned your theory.

You know that the majority of the audience for this information (message board posters, general sports fans) are not going to make the distinction between the measurement (YPC) being meaningless and the actual subject (rushing).


I have no disagreement with this and I would expect this to be true without looking at the stats; however, it does nothing to disprove the importance of a strong rushing threat.
Let me ask again: Which games this season did we have a "strong rushing threat" and which games did we not? Which games did we face a "strong rushing threat" and which games did we not?
You're the one that has implied that rushing is meaningless. You're the one that has convinced some people that rushing is meaningless. As stated above, the measurement of rushing (YPC) is meaningless but that has no bearing on the importance of rushing itself.

It is anybody that believes that rushing is of minimal importance that is lacking in proper statistics to prove it. It's NOT my theory. I'm on the theory review committee reviewing your theory. The burden of proof is on you.


We know that defenses will play 7 men in the box against a weak rushing threat and 8 men in the box against a strong rushing threat. Obviously, this is a simplistic example, but it is very descriptive of how the passing game benefits from a strong rushing threat. Two teams can both have 50 yards rushing which is what you see in the statistics; however, the one that did it against 8 men in the box accomplished more than the one that did it against 7 men the box but you can't see that with the simple statistics that are available. The one that did it against 8 men in the box most likely had the better passing statistics if all else was equal.
That's sort of the point: Loading up with eight men in the box to stop the run is counterproductive if it hurts your pass defense. Pass defense is much more important. And we all know the theories about how teams SHOULD be more successful against eight in the box, but there is no proof that those theories hold true within the context of a single game or how often, and there is no proof that the difference is more than marginal.
Yes, you have no proof of how a rushing threat impacts the game or winning. Lack of proof on your part in no way indicates that a strong rushing threat does not impact winning.

Lack of proof of one thing is not proof that the opposite is true.

You are making a conclusion that defenses should always play max pass defense and never load up against the run. The problem with that conclusion is that the statistics that point to passing correlating to winning and rushing not correlating are based on games played where defenses did load up against the run to some extent. If you make a fundamental change to the way that defenses play, then the old statistics might no longer be relevant. You could easily get into a situation where YPC becomes a determining factor in games if all defenses always play max pass coverage and minimal run defense. The averages for games are roughly 300 yards passing and 100 yards rushing. With your suggested paradigm shift, the numbers could be 200 passing and 200 rushing. Now YPC is more likely to correlate because it is a bigger piece of the pie.

Plus, you'd have to define a "strong rushing threat" at some point in order to examine this theory, but you have not. (Or cannot?) It obviously cannot be based on statistics, so you'll have to come up with something else.
Again, this all started with your theory. The burden of proof is on you, not on the reviewers.

But like you said, this whole theory has nothing to do with anything I've stated about the importance of passing success vs. rushing success.
If you really want to be above board and make your theory clear, it should read something like this:
Statistically, the key to winning games in the NFL is passing the ball more effectively than your opponent. This in no way implies anything in regards to how rushing impacts winning in the NFL. The simple statistic YPC does not correlate to winning and it does not correlate to losing. Rushing and Passing have some amount of interdependence which cannot be measured with the available statistics. Statistics such as when defenses play an extra man in the box against the rush and leave themselves vulnerable to the pass are not available. These statistics would be required in order to make any statistical determination on the importance of rushing to winning games in the NFL.

 

[AdamJT13]

You should really learn how to use the quote function.

You did. You've only started making it obvious that it's the measurement YPC is is meaningless once I questioned your theory.

Like I said, I've been saying the same thing for years and years -- how well you run or stop the run has almost no effect on whether you win or lose. You seemed to be confused and thought that had something to do with how often you run, so I had to make it clear for you.

It is anybody that believes that rushing is of minimal importance that is lacking in proper statistics to prove it. It's NOT my theory. I'm on the theory review committee reviewing your theory. The burden of proof is on you.

Also like I said, I don't have a "theory" for you to review. All I have are facts.

You are making a conclusion that defenses should always play max pass defense and never load up against the run.

That would be YOUR conclusion, not mine. I've never said that.