Detroit has the best run defense in the NFL

[SportsGuru80]

We will be fine... I like our run game against that 4-3 scheme.

 

[nalam]

I would take this number 1 rushing defense with pinch of salt, go ahead and check the opposition rushing offense rankings , they have only faced two top 10 rushing offense , Jets , panthers other than that a few top 10+ rush offenses or 20 + numbered rushing offenses.

If both Nick fairly and Suh playing of course it will be formidable but I think it's only an above average def front .

Boys OL should dictate terms early and often...

 

[Nirvana]

Who cares? If Dallas can't handily beat Detriot, they aren't winning against GB or Seattle or NE.

Dallas just needs to go out and take care of business.

It would affect the gameplan a bit if Suh wasn't in there IMO.

 

[Cebrin]

With Suh on the field:

1st down plays where opponents ran the ball: 140
Average yards per carry on those plays: 3.0



With Suh off the field:

1st down plays where opponents ran the ball: 39
Average yards per carry on those plays: 4.9



Source:

The last three games they've given up almost a 100 yards per game. Looking at their schedule, they haven't faced any teams the likes of Dallas or Seattle when it comes to being a true running football team. Green Bay being the closest to that and they got beat.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

I would take this number 1 rushing defense with pinch of salt, go ahead and check the opposition rushing offense rankings , they have only faced two top 10 rushing offense , Jets , panthers other than that a few top 10+ rush offenses or 20 + numbered rushing offenses.

If both Nick fairly and Suh playing of course it will be formidable but I think it's only an above average def front .

Boys OL should dictate terms early and often...

The Cowboys offense should be able to score 24+ points, I'm not that worried about them, it's how the Cowboys defense matches up that might be where the game hinges. If they can get their usual 2 or 3 takeaways then all should be good.

 

[windjc]

It would affect the gameplan a bit if Suh wasn't in there IMO.

Its not going to effect our gameplan. If you don't know, Dallas is going to run on first down 90%+ of the time. When we pick up 5+ yards we will run on 2nd down. If we pick up less than 5 yards we are going to pass on 2nd down. If it is 3rd and 1 or less we will run. If it is 3rd and 1+ we will pass.

We've done this all year. Defenses know we are going to do it. And we will do it Sunday.

We just need to execute and win.

 

[AdamJT13]

Rushing success has virtually no effect on who wins or loses. If we pass more effectively than Detroit does, we'll almost certainly win, whether we average 2.0 yards per carry or 6.0. If we don't, we'll almost certainly lose, regardless of how well we rush.

 

[d_dub88]

No.1 rush defense against a schedule full of teams that don't run the ball anyway.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Rushing success has virtually no effect on who wins or loses. If we pass more effectively than Detroit does, we'll almost certainly win, whether we average 2.0 yards per carry or 6.0. If we don't, we'll almost certainly lose, regardless of how well we rush.

Then why does everyone keep hyping Detroit's run defense?

 

[ljs44]

Rushing success has virtually no effect on who wins or loses. If we pass more effectively than Detroit does, we'll almost certainly win, whether we average 2.0 yards per carry or 6.0. If we don't, we'll almost certainly lose, regardless of how well we rush

I'm not sure how many times Adam has to go over this. Do people not pay attention????

 

[Galian Beast]

Rushing success has virtually no effect on who wins or loses. If we pass more effectively than Detroit does, we'll almost certainly win, whether we average 2.0 yards per carry or 6.0. If we don't, we'll almost certainly lose, regardless of how well we rush.

That is a mistake in understanding when you only look at numbers. Rushing success dictates formations and coverages which in turn play a role in passing efficiencies.

Overlooking the impact of the running game is mistaking causality and correlation in passing stats.

 

[AdamJT13]

That is a mistake in understanding when you only look at numbers. Rushing success dictates formations and coverages which in turn play a role in passing efficiencies.

Overlooking the impact of the running game is mistaking causality and correlation in passing stats.

Nope, that's not true at all. The "impact of the running game" -- such as it is -- can be had no matter how well you run the ball, and running the ball well certainly does not mean that you'll pass it well. There's simply almost no correlation between running the ball well and passing it well. And the vast majority of the time in the NFL, you win by passing better than your opponent. Running it better or worse makes almost no difference. That has been proved time after time, year after year.

It's extremely likely that Sunday's game will be won by the team that passes the ball better, regardless of which team runs it better -- just like all 16 of our regular season games were.

 

[JoeKing]

All I know is Lacy managed to run 100 yards on these fools so Murray can too. Romo will get his too. Cowboys win easily.

 

[AsthmaField]

Nope, that's not true at all. The "impact of the running game" -- such as it is -- can be had no matter how well you run the ball, and running the ball well certainly does not mean that you'll pass it well. There's simply almost no correlation between running the ball well and passing it well. And the vast majority of the time in the NFL, you win by passing better than your opponent. Running it better or worse makes almost no difference. That has been proved time after time, year after year.

It's extremely likely that Sunday's game will be won by the team that passes the ball better, regardless of which team runs it better -- just like all 16 of our regular season games were.

I wouldn't question you or any stats you bring up... I've been reading your stuff too long to do something foolish like that. However, it seems like when a team has an overpowering run game like Dallas does that teams have to load up to stop it like Philly did, for instance. When they do, that opens up the passing game much more than in past years when there was no run game to speak of in Dallas. Therefore, the passing game is much more efficient because the defense is so concerned about stopping the run.

In that case the passing game, which correlates to winning as you say, is improved because of the presence of the good run game. Even if the defense holds the runner to 2.5 yards per carry (for instance), the fact that they're committing resources to stop the run game has improved the passing game, which of course would prove what you're saying above.

While a low average per carry in the run game might not hurt your chances of winning in this case, the key factor IMO would be how much effort the defense has to put forth to hold that run game to that low average. If the defense can stop the run with 7 in the box, then that will very much hurt the passing game and the offense will have less chance of winning. On the other hand, if the defense has to commit 8 or 9 guys to hold the runner to a low average, then the passing game will be helped a ton and should be in much better shape to have success in the passing game.

To me it seems like the better the run game, the easier it is to perform well in the passing game. So, while the numbers may say that the passing game dictates the winner and the loser... the run game can heavily influence the success or failure of the passing game.

At least that's how it looks to me but I have always trusted your numbers and don't question them.

 

[AdamJT13]

I wouldn't question you or any stats you bring up... I've been reading your stuff too long to do something foolish like that. However, it seems like when a team has an overpowering run game like Dallas does that teams have to load up to stop it like Philly did, for instance. When they do, that opens up the passing game much more than in past years when there was no run game to speak of in Dallas. Therefore, the passing game is much more efficient because the defense is so concerned about stopping the run.

In that case the passing game, which correlates to winning as you say, is improved because of the presence of the good run game. Even if the defense holds the runner to 2.5 yards per carry (for instance), the fact that they're committing resources to stop the run game has improved the passing game, which of course would prove what you're saying above.

While a low average per carry in the run game might not hurt your chances of winning in this case, the key factor IMO would be how much effort the defense has to put forth to hold that run game to that low average. If the defense can stop the run with 7 in the box, then that will very much hurt the passing game and the offense will have less chance of winning. On the other hand, if the defense has to commit 8 or 9 guys to hold the runner to a low average, then the passing game will be helped a ton and should be in much better shape to have success in the passing game.

To me it seems like the better the run game, the easier it is to perform well in the passing game. So, while the numbers may say that the passing game dictates the winner and the loser... the run game can heavily influence the success or failure of the passing game.

At least that's how it looks to me but I have always trusted your numbers and don't question them.

I've explained this many times, but if the run game did heavily influence the success of the passing game, there would be some evidence of it happening. But there is none. The best rushing teams are not the best passing teams, and teams don't pass better in games when they run better. There's virtually no correlation at all.

But the main point for this thread is that it almost certainly does not matter how well we run in Sunday's game against Detroit -- there is almost no chance that it will decide whether we win or lose. If we average 2.0 yards per carry, we almost certainly will win if we pass better than Detroit does. If we average 6.0 yards per carry, we almost certainly will lose if we don't pass better than Detroit does.

Some people will argue that if we average 6.0 rushing, that will "open up" the passing game because Detroit will have to adjust to stop the run. Others will argue that if we average 2.0 rushing, THAT will "open up" the passing game because Detroit must have focused first on stopping the run. Either way, it's irrelevant because there is almost NO correlation between a high or low rushing average and being able to pass effectively. You can average 2.0 and pass great, or you can average 6.0 and pass great, just like you can average 2.0 and pass terribly or average 6.0 rushing and pass terribly. What is important is how well you pass (and stop the pass), not how well you run (or stop the run).

 

[Sarge]

I've explained this many times, but if the run game did heavily influence the success of the passing game, there would be some evidence of it happening. But there is none. The best rushing teams are not the best passing teams, and teams don't pass better in games when they run better. There's virtually no correlation at all.

But the main point for this thread is that it almost certainly does not matter how well we run in Sunday's game against Detroit -- there is almost no chance that it will decide whether we win or lose. If we average 2.0 yards per carry, we almost certainly will win if we pass better than Detroit does. If we average 6.0 yards per carry, we almost certainly will lose if we don't pass better than Detroit does.

Some people will argue that if we average 6.0 rushing, that will "open up" the passing game because Detroit will have to adjust to stop the run. Others will argue that if we average 2.0 rushing, THAT will "open up" the passing game because Detroit must have focused first on stopping the run. Either way, it's irrelevant because there is almost NO correlation between a high or low rushing average and being able to pass effectively. You can average 2.0 and pass great, or you can average 6.0 and pass great, just like you can average 2.0 and pass terribly or average 6.0 rushing and pass terribly. What is important is how well you pass (and stop the pass), not how well you run (or stop the run).

If you averaged 6 yards per carry there would be no need to have a passing game whatsoever.

 

[Mansta54]

Seattle had the best run D when we played them also and how did that work out for them? Our oline will handle them.

 

[Risen Star]

69.3 yards a game

3.2 yards an attempt

Gonna be some tough sledding

Plus our running game hasn't been all that effective the last month of the season with the exception of the last game against Washington.

 

[Risen Star]

If you averaged 6 yards per carry there would be no need to have a passing game whatsoever.

Sometimes you need to put the calculator away, talk to a female and watch the games.

Common sense tells you if the Lions can control the Cowboys run game with 7 in the box, it allows them an extra defender in the secondary against 2nd and 3rd longs. The down and distance is in their favor.

If the Cowboys can gash the Lions running the ball they will have favorable 2nd and 3rd short situations, the Lions have to begin getting nosey at the line of scrimmage and they leave themselves susceptible to throws down the field. Not to mention the Cowboys offense would be far less predictable in those situations. They wouldn't be one dimensional.

And, lastly, an effective run game allows you to control the clock. Which is the greatest strength of this Cowboys team. Saying running the ball effectively doesn't matter is about as brilliant as Chip Kelly's TOP doesn't matter gem.

 

[Ken]

Well....i for one am getting nervous about this game after initially being very confident. I have confidence our boys will come out and get the W....but why do we draw the absolute toughest matchup in the playoff's first round? Just our luck.....