Detroit has the best run defense in the NFL

[khiladi]

Dallas needs to finish its drives, unlike last year. Megatron had a huge game yardage-wise, but it came down to the end. The Cowboys defense generated 4 TOs but Dallas didn't capitalize on what should have been a blow out. Their were long stretches where the offense went stale.

They lost last year because of the offense in large part. If they don't go back to those tendencies of 3 and puts for long period, they should dominate.

 

[AdamJT13]

I think some take it as you feel the run has no importance or impact on the game.

I've never said that. I've said that how well you run or stop the run -- as in what you average or allow per carry -- has virtually no impact on winning or losing.

 

[SultanOfSix]

If I was on the Cowboys offensive line I would be playing with a chip on my shoulder tomorrow.

 

[AdamJT13]

We certainly didn't stop us from running the ball against the Rams even though we were behind. So Dallas went against the grain and ran the ball even when they were losing?

I was talking about teams that need to come back late in the game. We were never losing by more than four points after Romo's 68-yard TD pass two minutes into the second half. Teams that trail by more than one touchdown in the final 10 minutes of a game pass the ball 83 percent of the time, while the team that leads runs it 81 percent of the time.

We are 13-2 when Murray runs for over a 100 yards.

It's actually 19-4 for his career and 10-2 this season.

Emmitt also had those same stats which running for over 100 yards correlated to winning. So doesn't it make sense for a team to run the ball in order to reach a hundred yards rushing in order to better the odds of winning?

Thinking that we're 10-2 when Murray rushes for 100 yards BECAUSE he rushed for 100 yards would be mistaking cause and effect. He had 79 yards by the middle of the third quarter in the first game against the Eagles (on pace for more than 125 yards), but we were trailing 30-10. Would continuing to run him until he got 100 yards increase our chances of winning? Almost certainly not. He finished with exactly 100 yards against the Jaguars and in the second game against the Commanders. Would we have blown double-digit fourth-quarter leads (31-7 against the Jags and 30-17 with less then four minutes left against the Skins) if we hadn't given Murray one last carry to nudge him up to 100 yards? Of course not.

 

[AdamJT13]

You're conflating YPC with success running... Not the same thing.

No, I'm not. I've made it quite clear that a "successful" running game has nothing to do with how well you run it (YPC).

Like I said, if you don't think YPC is important, then you agree with me that it's virtually irrelevant when it comes to winning or losing in the NFL.

 

[Galian Beast]

No, I'm not. I've made it quite clear that a "successful" running game has nothing to do with how well you run it (YPC).

Like I said, if you don't think YPC is important, then you agree with me that it's virtually irrelevant when it comes to winning or losing in the NFL.

Please go back and see how this discussion unfolded...

 

[AdamJT13]

Please go back and see how this discussion unfolded...

You mean how people started worrying about Detroit's run defense being "the best in the NFL"?

Yeah, still virtually irrelevant.

 

[Galian Beast]

You mean how people started worrying about Detroit's run defense being "the best in the NFL"?

Yeah, still virtually irrelevant.

No, you made a statement that rushing success wasn't an indicator in winning. It was pointed out that YPC isn't the same thing as a successful running game, and you conflated the two together before at least admitting that they aren't the same.

 

[AdamJT13]

No, you made a statement that rushing success wasn't an indicator in winning. It was pointed out that YPC isn't the same thing as a successful running game, and you conflated the two together before at least admitting that they aren't the same.

I've made it very clear for years that how well you run the ball (YPC) or stop the run makes virtually no difference in the NFL. If you want to play semantics, feel free. Apparently you agree with me anyway.

And regardless of anything to do with rushing, the main point is still that the team that passes the ball more effectively almost always wins. If we pass more effectively then Detroit, we'll almost certainly win. And if we don't, we'll almost certainly lose.

 

[Galian Beast]

I've made it very clear for years that how well you run the ball (YPC) or stop the run makes virtually no difference in the NFL. If you want to play semantics, feel free. Apparently you agree with me anyway.

And regardless of anything to do with rushing, the main point is still that the team that passes the ball more effectively almost always wins. If we pass more effectively then Detroit, we'll almost certainly win. And if we don't, we'll almost certainly lose.

The point many of us have tried to emphasize here is that rushing success plays a large hand in that, and a large hand in passing the ball effectively.

One of the best examples of this would be Brett Favre who had one of his greatest years in the NFL when paired with Adrian Peterson.

 

[AdamJT13]

The point many of us have tried to emphasize here is that rushing success plays a large hand in that, and a large hand in passing the ball effectively.

Only if you define "rushing success" as something different from yards per carry or any other measurement that has been used to evaluate rushing success or to compare one player or team to another in terms of rushing success. Using every known statistical measurement for efficiency, there is virtually no correlation.

 

[Galian Beast]

Only if you define "rushing success" as something different from yards per carry or any other measurement that has been used to evaluate rushing success or to compare one player or team to another in terms of rushing success. Using every known statistical measurement for efficiency, there is virtually no correlation.

That's what I told you early. That not everything is on paper.

If a team puts 8 or 9 in the box, that stat sheet doesn't reflect the change, but the game definitely changes.

 

[visionary]

Only if you define "rushing success" as something different from yards per carry or any other measurement that has been used to evaluate rushing success or to compare one player or team to another in terms of rushing success. Using every known statistical measurement for efficiency, there is virtually no correlation.

Why then do all coaches, DC s, and players say that they want to stop the run as their first priority?
Shouldn't they say that they don't care about the run and just want to stop the pass?
Are all these professionals lying? Are they just ignorant ? Do these NFL teams just don't have access to these statistics? Or maybe just maybe they know that running effectively has a large impact on winning and losing?

Just a wild guess on my part

 

[khiladi]

Yards per carry reflect averages. That's the problem with statistical averages, because they don't necessarily reflect situational context.

 

[Galian Beast]

Why then do all coaches, DC s, and players say that they want to stop the run as their first priority?
Shouldn't they say that they don't care about the run and just want to stop the pass?
Are all these professionals lying? Are they just ignorant ? Do these NFL teams just don't have access to these statistics? Or maybe just maybe they know that running effectively has a large impact on winning and losing?

Just a wild guess on my part

It is a passing league, but defending against the run definitely comes first. If you can't stop the run teams will convert downs, get manageable down and distances, and eat up clock. This is why teams stock up to defend the run even at the cost of the pass defense. You want to force teams into 3rd and long.

 

[Galian Beast]

Yards per carry reflect averages. That's the problem with statistical averages, because they don't reflect situational context.

Exactly. On the aggregate we can gleam some generalities from these stats, but they can be extremely misleading. Especially since we have divisions with very different characteristics and teams play their divisional opponents twice.

 

[khiladi]

Dallas ran well in previous seasons. But they rarely used play action, the point being the run was rarely used in relation to setting up the passing game.

Things like balance may not mean anything, other than your fulfilling some mathematical ratio. If the defense isn't fooled in what your doing, the ratio means nothing.

 

[khiladi]

Exactly. On the aggregate we can gleam some generalities from these stats, but they can be extremely misleading. Especially since we have divisions with very different characteristics and teams play their divisional opponents twice.

Dallas has been a top five yardage offense for years, but they weren't a top
five offense in reality. They sucked against good defenses and even stretches against bad teams they stalled. They often had to go up-tempo and no huddle street ball.

This year is the only year one can say they are playing systematically and hanging with good teams offensively.

 

[Longboysfan]

If GB can do it, we can do it. This is with Suh, this is what happens when they play base/pass coverage. They will have to stack the box and that will leave the passing game open. Lacy had over 100 yards, don't see why Demarco can't have 125 yards.

Starks running wild. This is early in the game and it really set the tone. Suh being handled one on one.

Agreed. Stay at it and they will fall.

 

[CCBoy]

Last week, Packers running back Eddie Lacy picked up 100 yards on the ground against the Lions.