Detroit has the best run defense in the NFL

[cowboys69fan]

With the offense that we have this year and how their peaking right now, this is only one aspect of our arsenal we have to many looks for even the best defenses, we'll kill them with in the AIR, the package will get delivered one way or the other, Promise you this, we have to many schemes and looks now, Suh is only one man,

 

[windjc]

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.

Hmmm. Someone is butthurt.

 

[mldardy]

Hmmm. Someone is butthurt.

Dude is always butthurt and always wrong.

 

[texbumthelife]

Detroit does have a stout defensive line. They are strong, aggressive and very talented in that front four. However, their back seven+ are horrible and they will have to commit an extra defender to stopping Bryant. That front four will also over pursue with regularity. You have to hit them with some cut backs and counters.

I expect a close game, but I do think Dallas has the horses to get to Green Bay. THAT game, however, could be ugly...

 

[Galian Beast]

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.

Adam, you're a smart guy, I like you, but you're not realizing that not everything can be found in the numbers.

When you have a player that draws double coverage and thus opens the game up for other players, but doesn't garner stats for a game, doesn't show up on paper, but their impact was felt.

It's not all about the numbers.

 

[xwalker]

Sorry, I guess I'm not respecting your authoritah:

 

[AdamJT13]

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.

We averaged 2.7 yards per carry against the Eagles and 3.2 against the Colts. Murray averaged 2.6 in both of those games.

 

[AdamJT13]

Adam, you're a smart guy, I like you, but you're not realizing that not everything can be found in the numbers.

Using the "the numbers don't tell the story" argument is counterproductive when you're trying to claim that the numbers (YPC) are important and I'm saying they're not. YPC is not important partly BECAUSE it doesn't tell the whole story -- as I've said, the effects of the running game, such as they are, ARE NOT based on the numbers.

What we average rushing against the Lions almost certainly will NOT affect how well we pass the ball, and it almost certainly will NOT affect whether we win or lose. If the Lions decide to focus on stopping the run and we average 3.1 yards per carry, that won't stop us from winning if we pass the ball better than they do. If we average 5.5 rushing, that almost certainly won't help us win if we don't pass the ball better than they do.

 

[Dale]

Using the "the numbers don't tell the story" argument is counterproductive when you're trying to claim that the numbers (YPC) are important and I'm saying they're not. YPC is not important partly BECAUSE it doesn't tell the whole story -- as I've said, the effects of the running game, such as they are, ARE NOT based on the numbers.

What we average rushing against the Lions almost certainly will NOT affect how well we pass the ball, and it almost certainly will NOT affect whether we win or lose. If the Lions decide to focus on stopping the run and we average 3.1 yards per carry, that won't stop us from winning if we pass the ball better than they do. If we average 5.5 rushing, that almost certainly won't help us win if we don't pass the ball better than they do.

To add to your point: Detroit has played two top-10 ranked rushing attacks this season, New York (Jets) and Carolina. The Panthers averaged something like 2.8 yards per carry but hammered the Lions. The Jets rushed for about 5.5 yards per attempt and lost.

 

[Mansta54]

ote="AdamJT13, post: 5896570, member: 20"]We averaged 2.7 yards per carry against the Eagles and 3.2 against the Colts. Murray averaged 2.6 in both of those games.[/quote]

Exactly! And that's why our passing game was so good in those games because teams are so focused on our run and to me, that means our running game was very effective. Our running game is effective without running for big yards cause teams have to play it first, then Romo and our passing game kills them. That's a effective running game in my eyes.

 

[mldardy]

To add to your point: Detroit has played two top-10 ranked rushing attacks this season, New York (Jets) and Carolina. The Panthers averaged something like 2.8 yards per carry but hammered the Lions. The Jets rushed for about 5.5 yards per attempt and lost.

Outside of Green Bay, New England and Arizona. Detroit has played a bunch of nobodies this year. That best rush defense is such a facade.

 

[Galian Beast]

Using the "the numbers don't tell the story" argument is counterproductive when you're trying to claim that the numbers (YPC) are important and I'm saying they're not. YPC is not important partly BECAUSE it doesn't tell the whole story -- as I've said, the effects of the running game, such as they are, ARE NOT based on the numbers.

What we average rushing against the Lions almost certainly will NOT affect how well we pass the ball, and it almost certainly will NOT affect whether we win or lose. If the Lions decide to focus on stopping the run and we average 3.1 yards per carry, that won't stop us from winning if we pass the ball better than they do. If we average 5.5 rushing, that almost certainly won't help us win if we don't pass the ball better than they do.

You've made two errors here:

a) You've confused correlation with causation
b) You've made a straw man argument.

No one said that YPC is an important indicator. Rather a team's ability to run the ball successfully can create a difference in how defenses play against an offense.

Example:

Team is averaging 5 YPC in the first quarter. As a result the defense on the opposing team then stacks the box with 8 players for the remainder of the game. For the remainder of the game, the team averages 3.2 YPC, but because there are 8 defenders in the box, the offense is now able to become more productive in passing the ball. The team wins.

The lower rushing stats don't suggest that the running game played a factor, but in reality they did.

 

[ConstantReboot]

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.

If we rush with a 6 yards per carry average were gonna win this game. I can almost guarantee it.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Sometimes hurling childish insults makes you look like the child.



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.



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.

I'm going highly disagree with what your saying here.

Running the ball is a very important factor. Teams who run the ball are teams that win games. It is not because they pass the ball that helps them win games.

Since your a numbers guy I don' know why you failed to point out that when we run the ball over 20 times or more and gain a hundred + yards our have a higher percentage of winning games. However, when we failed to attain those numbers our winning percentages decreases. Those numbers were also evident during the 90s Cowboys as well as the days of Staubach and Dorsett. Thus Im surprised you didn't mention that stat regarding running the ball. Because it simply a fact that running wins games.

Why is running the ball important?

First of all, it chews up clock. TOP is very important in an offense. One way for teams to succeed with a high TOP is to run the ball. So its no accident that Dallas as a running team has a high TOP.

Secondly, when you run the ball successfully, it improves the passing game. Once again, its not an accident that 2014 Dallas had a high percentage of converting 3rd downs compared to 2013. Thats because when we run the ball in 1st and 2nd down we end up with 3rd and short situations which has a high conversion rate compared to 3rd and long. The reason why we run is because we want 3rd and short situations rather than 3rd and long - and has been mentioned by Garrett on why we have been successful on 3rd down situations. Thus we are good at converting 3rd downs because were running the ball. Not because were a good at converting 3rd downs.

Lastly, most teams that run the ball well end up winning more games. Right now Seattle is favored to become repeat Superbowl winners. Why? Thats because they run the ball and play good defense. When they run the ball it chews up the clock and keeps their defense off the field. While their opponents are on the field trying to stop the run, their defense are on the sidelines enjoying the game and having fun. This is why you notice teams are making mistakes against us during the waning parts of the game. Its also the reason why we break those long runs during the 4th quarter. Its because running the ball keeps the defense fresh and makes the other team work.

Running the ball changes the complexity of an entire team. It improves the passing game and the defense. Why do you think that we had such a drastic turn around this year compared to last year? Thats because we run the ball and do it successfully.

 

[AdamJT13]

No one said that YPC is an important indicator.

Um, my entire premise is that YPC is NOT an important factor.

So then you agree with everything I've said?

 

[AdamJT13]

If we rush with a 6 yards per carry average were gonna win this game. I can almost guarantee it.

Anyone can make a prediction, and you might be right, but history says that averaging 6.0 yards per carry does not help you win the game. As stated earlier, over the past five seasons, less than half of the teams that averaged at least 6.0 yards per carry in a game won (only 105 of 222 teams).

Whether you rush for 6.0 YPC or 2.0 YPC, you almost always have to pass better than your opponent in order to win.

 

[AdamJT13]

I'm going highly disagree with what your saying here.

Running the ball is a very important factor. Teams who run the ball are teams that win games. It is not because they pass the ball that helps them win games.

Since your a numbers guy I don' know why you failed to point out that when we run the ball over 20 times or more and gain a hundred + yards our have a higher percentage of winning games. However, when we failed to attain those numbers our winning percentages decreases.

Unlike Galian Beast's mistaken claim (passing efficiency has been proved to be the reason teams win, not a result of teams winning), YOU are mistaking cause and correlation.

Teams run more BECAUSE they are winning. Given a lead, especially late in the game, teams run the ball more and add to their total carries and yards. Teams that are trailing, especially late in the game, pass the ball more, so they end up with fewer carries and yards. That's why looking at totals -- total pass attempts, rushing attempts, total rushing yards or total passing yards -- is meaningless if you want to know why teams win. You have to look at efficiency stats. And those have been proved to be far more important for passing than they are for rushing.

 

[CCBoy]

Anyone can make a prediction, and you might be right, but history says that averaging 6.0 yards per carry does not help you win the game. As stated earlier, over the past five seasons, less than half of the teams that averaged at least 6.0 yards per carry in a game won (only 105 of 222 teams).

Whether you rush for 6.0 YPC or 2.0 YPC, you almost always have to pass better than your opponent in order to win.

AdamJT13, I'm in complete agreement with you...but through the eyes of a former linebacker.

I don't care if the ball carrier gets stopped by me fifteen times at the line of the scrimmage, I'm still flat footed for most of the game worrying about that pair of thirty yard gains. Then having to hold back for open field magic he possesses when thrown a flat pass or screen. My whole game is affected by fears of those explosive and pure talent plays.

That shows up as well...and not being able to control the clock, because of a very good passing game just would drive me crazy as a linebacker.

 

[Doomsday101]

Unlike Galian Beast's mistaken claim (passing efficiency has been proved to be the reason teams win, not a result of teams winning), YOU are mistaking cause and correlation.

Teams run more BECAUSE they are winning. Given a lead, especially late in the game, teams run the ball more and add to their total carries and yards. Teams that are trailing, especially late in the game, pass the ball more, so they end up with fewer carries and yards. That's why looking at totals -- total pass attempts, rushing attempts, total rushing yards or total passing yards -- is meaningless if you want to know why teams win. You have to look at efficiency stats. And those have been proved to be far more important for passing than they are for rushing.

Dallas is not running late in game they run through out the game and passing has been more efficient because of the ability to run the ball. When teams are forced to stack the line to stop the run it opens up a lot in the passing game. I think some take it as you feel the run has no importance or impact on the game. Running is not just about killing the clock with a lead

 

[TwoDeep3]

This contest, like all NFL games, is based on the success of third down. Both defensively and offensively.

Move the chains on third downs, your offense is winning. Stop the chains from moving on third down and your defense is winning.

Dallas needs to convert third downs and force punts.

And that other pesky thing, score points.