Detroit has the best run defense in the NFL

[Risen Star]

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.....

I'll be interested to see the reaction around here if they do go one and done in the playoffs.

 

[Fredd]

they haven't played out OLine yet...Green Bay abused them with Suh in the game, we should do the same

 

[AdamJT13]

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

Yes, there would. Averaging 6 yards per carry doesn't mean you gain 6 yards every time you run it. You'll still have runs for fewer yards, no yards or even negative yards, and you'll still end up with third-and-longs. You could still have penalties and end up with first-and-20 or second-and-14.

More importantly, you're missing the point that your pass defense matters, too. If you average 6 yards per carry and can't stop the other team from passing, you probably still won't win unless you pass better than they do.

This season, there were 37 teams that averaged 6.0 yards per carry or better in a game. They went 17-19-1 in those games. Over the past five seasons, teams averaging 6.0 or better are 105-116-1.

So, even if you average 6.0 yards per carry, you had better be able to pass well and stop the pass if you want to win.

 

[Ashwynn]

If you run for 6 yards a carry, you should be able to pass all over the field. The run sets up the passing game big time in this league.

Wonder out of those 17 wins, how many winners had more passing yards than rushing yards. Also how many of the 19 losses were with more passing yards than rushing yards.

 

[AsthmaField]

Yes, there would. Averaging 6 yards per carry doesn't mean you gain 6 yards every time you run it. You'll still have runs for fewer yards, no yards or even negative yards, and you'll still end up with third-and-longs. You could still have penalties and end up with first-and-20 or second-and-14.

More importantly, you're missing the point that your pass defense matters, too. If you average 6 yards per carry and can't stop the other team from passing, you probably still won't win unless you pass better than they do.

This season, there were 37 teams that averaged 6.0 yards per carry or better in a game. They went 17-19-1 in those games. Over the past five seasons, teams averaging 6.0 or better are 105-116-1.

So, even if you average 6.0 yards per carry, you had better be able to pass well and stop the pass if you want to win.

But if your offense is averaging 6.0 per carry, the defense will bring up more guys to stop the run which will in turn, improve your passing game (assuming you have a QB who can play well enough to take advantage of the decreased coverage by the defense). So the effective passing game fits your criteria (be able to pass well) but it does so in part because the good run game took pressure off of the passing game.

In addition to that, your defense has likely been helped by time of possession and isn't as fatigued when playing, so there would be a increase in the pass defense, which again is the criteria that indicates the winning team.

So, while it is indeed the success or failure in the pass game that indicates who is successful, the run game still could play a big part in the eventual stat that says the run game isn't important.

In other words... a good running game doesn't guarantee a good passing game or good pass defense but it should improve your chances in both your passing offense and your passing defense.

Do you think the above is false or are we talking in two different directions here?

 

[ringmaster]

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 see what both you and Adam are say two of the most knowledgeable posters on this board.

 

[StarBoyz83]

Why does eveybody think detriot is so good? They barely limped into the playoffs. Packers, seattle, denver and new england are all better. if dallas cant beat them they werent going to do anything anyway. dallas should win by at least 14-21

 

[Frozen700]

Our zone blocking scheme works better and has always worked better against 4-3 defenses. Their DL won't be an issue. I know it sounds cocky, but this lions front, with or without Suh is not as tough of a matchup as the eagles Front 7.

That's what I thought. I thought the Eagles were more dangerous.

 

[windjc]

I'll be interested to see the reaction around here if they do go one and done in the playoffs.

No mystery. The reaction will be of disappointment. You find that interesting? Yeah, you probably do.

 

[Risen Star]

No mystery. The reaction will be of disappointment. You find that interesting? Yeah, you probably do.

No, sensitive baby homer. I'm referring to how much that obvious disappointment will lead to nonsense statements like our head coach should be fired.

 

[Oh_Canada]

No, sensitive baby homer. I'm referring to how much that obvious disappointment will lead to nonsense statements like our head coach should be fired.

Agree and hope that isn't the case but of course it will be.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Its not going to effect our gameplan. If you don't know, Dallas is going to run on first down 90%+ of the time.

70%.

When we pick up 5+ yards we will run on 2nd down.

47% of the time.

If we pick up less than 5 yards we are going to pass on 2nd down.

65% of the time.

If it is 3rd and 1 or less we will run.

79% of the time.

If it is 3rd and 1+ we will pass.

85% of the time.

You have the general trends mostly right, but we're not nearly as predictable as you're suggesting.

 

[AdamJT13]

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

Sometimes hurling childish insults makes you look like the child.

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.

As I've explained many times, all of those things are nice in theory, but they still don't mean that you'll be successful at passing or stopping the pass during a particular game. You still have to be able to convert on third-and-short or third-and-long no matter how many defensive backs are on the field -- and there are so few of those in a game and they can be so crucial that the "odds" rarely play out like they should. That's one of the many reasons why there ends up being virtually no correlation between running well an passing well, nor stopping the run and stopping the pass.

And, lastly, an effective run game allows you to control the clock. Which is the greatest strength of this Cowboys team.

You control the clock by picking up first downs, whether you run or pass. Going run-run-run punt doesn't use as much clock as going run-incompletion-completion-completion-run-incompletion-incompletion-punt. The best ball-control offense in the league this season called 645 passes and only 423 rushes and finished 16th in yards per rush. Our offense's ability to control the clock comes as much from being No. 2 in the league in both third-down conversion percentage and completion percentage as it does from being No. 3 in yards per rush.

Regardless, you don't win games by controlling the clock, you win games by outscoring your opponent -- and to do that in the vast majority of games, you have to pass the ball better than your opponent.

 

[xwalker]

But if your offense is averaging 6.0 per carry, the defense will bring up more guys to stop the run which will in turn, improve your passing game (assuming you have a QB who can play well enough to take advantage of the decreased coverage by the defense). So the effective passing game fits your criteria (be able to pass well) but it does so in part because the good run game took pressure off of the passing game.

In addition to that, your defense has likely been helped by time of possession and isn't as fatigued when playing, so there would be a increase in the pass defense, which again is the criteria that indicates the winning team.

So, while it is indeed the success or failure in the pass game that indicates who is successful, the run game still could play a big part in the eventual stat that says the run game isn't important.

In other words... a good running game doesn't guarantee a good passing game or good pass defense but it should improve your chances in both your passing offense and your passing defense.

Do you think the above is false or are we talking in two different directions here?

Don't beat your head against the wall trying to argue this point. There is a group of people that believe that the only thing that matters is "the team that passes more effectively wins". They will just keep repeating the statistic that passing effectively correlates to wins.

The reality is that they just don't have the ability to show statistically how the running game contributes to winning. A lack of ability to show the importance of the running game doesn't not prove that the running game is minimally important to winning.

Simplistic statistics like passing effectively correlates to winning are single variable statistics. Winning is a multivariable equation. The running game and passing game are interdependent variables, not independent variables. The passing correlates to winning statistics can't show which team's passing game improved because the defense played with a defend the run first style and used 8 or 9 men in the box to stop the run. Defenses adjust to a good running game which will always limit the running game statistics. If somebody really wanted to be accurate, they would need statistics that show things like how often the defense played run 1st, used more men in the box, used a read and react style by the DEs that limited the pass rush against teams with a strong running game, etc.. Obviously, some of those things are basically impossible to statistically quantify. You can watch a game and see some DEs hold up on their pass rush in games against offenses with at strong running threat, but how would you ever put that into a statistical format?

Obviously, passing might be more important than running if you could put a number on it like 60-40, but it's definitely not 100-0 in favor of passing. Teams average around 300 yards passing and 100 yards rushing, so statistically passing is always going to "look" more important from a statistical viewpoint.

I can tell you from past experience that the people that believe this concept are not willing to consider that they might be wrong. It's not as-if I'm an old-school, gut-feel, we've always done it this way person in terms of my football viewpoint that eschews some newfangled statistical approach to the game. One of my degrees in Mathematics, so it's not as-if I'm anti-statistical analysis.

If the running game really didn't matter and it was all about passing, then defenses would replace linebackers with cornerbacks. There would be no such thing as a pass rushing specialist that is a part time player because he is poor run defender. The best pass rushers would always play and run defenders would be cut from the team.

 

[AdamJT13]

If you run for 6 yards a carry, you should be able to pass all over the field. The run sets up the passing game big time in this league.

Except that it doesn't. There's virtually no correlation between running the ball well and passing it well. If there was, then teams that average 6.0 or better rushing would pass it better, which would result in winning more often than not -- not a sub-.500 winning percentage.

Of those 222 teams that averaged 6.0 per rush in a game during the past five seasons, 116 of them averaged LESS than the NFL median of 5.78 yards per pass in those games. (Not surprisingly, they went 43-73 in those games.) Only 106 of them averaged MORE than 5.78 yards per pass (they went 62-43-1 in those games).

If we drop the rushing criteria to 5.0 per rush, it's 316 teams that averaged LESS than 5.78 per pass and only 286 that averaged more than 5.78. Drop it to 4.0, and it's 678 teams under 5.78 and only 651 over 5.78.

Running the ball well in a game simply does NOT translate to being able to pass it well. If it did, obviously, it would correlate with winning, but it doesn't.[/quote][/quote]

 

[punchnjudy]

But if your offense is averaging 6.0 per carry, the defense will bring up more guys to stop the run which will in turn, improve your passing game (assuming you have a QB who can play well enough to take advantage of the decreased coverage by the defense). So the effective passing game fits your criteria (be able to pass well) but it does so in part because the good run game took pressure off of the passing game.

In addition to that, your defense has likely been helped by time of possession and isn't as fatigued when playing, so there would be a increase in the pass defense, which again is the criteria that indicates the winning team.

So, while it is indeed the success or failure in the pass game that indicates who is successful, the run game still could play a big part in the eventual stat that says the run game isn't important.

In other words... a good running game doesn't guarantee a good passing game or good pass defense but it should improve your chances in both your passing offense and your passing defense.

Do you think the above is false or are we talking in two different directions here?

If Dallas averages 6 ypc for the entire game, it will probably mean they were blown out and Detroit didn't care about the running game. It will almost certainly mean Murray didn't spend several carries burning out the clock. Murray's "worst" quarter by far going purely by ypc is the 4th quarter. I think anyone here can figure out why that would be the case.

I agree with what you said; just pointing out that ypc is a worthless statistic that has as much meaning in isolation as color of uniform. How else could Felix Jones have an average close to Emmitt Smith? YPC is so dependent upon situation that it simply doesn't reflect anything. Of course a team will average less running against a wall on 3rd and inches than they will on give up plays (ie. 3rd and a mile), though I think Dallas usually passes in those situations.

The reality is that Dallas will run the ball a lot on 1st down. That's a given, like it or not. If they average 2 ypc on 1st and 10 while a lot of time is left, it will mean Tony is in a lot of 2nd and 11+ situations where his qb rating is 78.9. It will also mean less 3rd and <6 situations where his qb rating is 130.8 opposed to 85.9 where it's 3rd and 8-10.

 

[Mansta54]

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.

Our running game has been very effective in the past month, have you seen our passing game during that span? Thats because our running game has been so good. You probably wouldn't understand my point though. Smh!

 

[Mansta54]

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.

Well said...

 

[AsthmaField]

Yeah, I'm going to stop debating it at this point. Both my experience playing football and watching football tell me that a very good run game complicates things for the defense. Just watch everyone on the defense creeping up and then Romo hitting Dez over the top and it is easy to tell that the defense wasn't defending the pass properly because they had to concern themselves with stopping the run game.

xwalker, your point on watching the defensive ends mush-rush because they're worried Murray will gash them is a very good one. There are many ways a strong run game effects the defense and none of them help the defense.

I never doubt Adam's stats because he's never wrong about them... but in this case those stats require quite a bit of interpretation in order to tell the story IMO.

 

[AdamJT13]

The reality is that they just don't have the ability to show statistically how the running game contributes to winning. A lack of ability to show the importance of the running game doesn't not prove that the running game is minimally important to winning.

The contributions of the running game can be had regardless of how effectively you run the ball. Game situations, formations, personnel and execution dictate the defense's reaction as much as or more than how well you're running the ball during the game.

Simplistic statistics like passing effectively correlates to winning are single variable statistics. Winning is a multivariable equation. The running game and passing game are interdependent variables, not independent variables.

Not really.

The passing correlates to winning statistics can't show which team's passing game improved because the defense played with a defend the run first style and used 8 or 9 men in the box to stop the run. Defenses adjust to a good running game which will always limit the running game statistics. If somebody really wanted to be accurate, they would need statistics that show things like how often the defense played run 1st, used more men in the box, used a read and react style by the DEs that limited the pass rush against teams with a strong running game, etc.. Obviously, some of those things are basically impossible to statistically quantify. You can watch a game and see some DEs hold up on their pass rush in games against offenses with at strong running threat, but how would you ever put that into a statistical format?

If all of those things made it easier to pass, then teams that are effective at rushing would be more effective, on average, at passing, would they not? Would they not be facing more men in the box, forcing the defensive line to read and react more often, etc., than teams that are not as effective at running?

In reality, teams have to be able to pass effectively even when the opponent knows they're going to pass, and they have to be able to stop the pass no matter the situation. An effective running game doesn't help much in those must-pass situations -- third-and-long, two-minute drill, etc. -- that so often are exactly what decides who wins or loses.

If the running game really didn't matter and it was all about passing, then defenses would replace linebackers with cornerbacks. There would be no such thing as a pass rushing specialist that is a part time player because he is poor run defender. The best pass rushers would always play and run defenders would be cut from the team.

This is a nonsensical argument. If you change the way the game is played, then the way it plays out changes. If your suggestion ever happens, then we'll find out what the key to winning becomes. Until then, it's almost always passing the ball better than your opponent.