Detroit has the best run defense in the NFL

[Verdict]

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.

You are a very smart man Adam, but that statement is patently false. If we successfully run the ball then our chance of winning goes up. If we don't have success running the ball, then we can still win, but our chances go down. This is especially true late in the game when you need to run the ball to kill the clock. Common sense tells you that ..... I don't care what the stats say. If you can successfully run the ball it opens up the passing game and makes it much more effective. Our balanced attack is EXACTLY why Romo is making fewer mistakes and icing games.

 

[Verdict]

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.

I agree with this part of your post.

 

[COfWaBnOY]

and Seattle had the #1 rush defense at the time we played then (if I'm not mistaken) ..... so ..... your point is ???..

 

[Verdict]

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 are way too hung up on the stats in this case and not relying near enough on your common sense. The THREAT of Murray running the ball is what is keeping defenses off balance. If Murray was averaging one yard per carry they would key on the pass, making passing the ball more difficult, and lowering the success rate of the pass. Keeping the down and distance manageable on third down makes third downs easier to convert. The running game is a huge part of that.

If you run the ball for three yards on first down then you are going to have much greater success on the whole than of you run it for no gain on first down. This isn't rocket science. It is pretty much a given that you will, on average, convert for a first down more often when you are at 2nd and 5 than 2nd and 9.

 

[Verdict]

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.

I think many of the posters here understand what you meant in your post ..... we just don't agree with the fallacy of this argument. The easiest way to disprove what you are saying is to take it to an absurdity. What you are saying is if we carry the ball 20 times for 20 yards per carry that it would have no correlation to winning the game. That would be absurd. Or if we lost 20 yards per carry 20 times that it would have no impact on winning the game. That is patently absurd Adam.

 

[AdamJT13]

You are a very smart man Adam, but that statement is patently false. If we successfully run the ball then our chance of winning goes up. If we don't have success running the ball, then we can still win, but our chances go down. This is especially true late in the game when you need to run the ball to kill the clock. Common sense tells you that ..... I don't care what the stats say.

Wait, "common sense" tells you that, and you don't care what the stats say? So you admit that you don't care that the stats say your "common sense" is wrong?

Our chances of winning don't go up or down based on how well we run the ball (as measured by YPC or anything similar) or how well we stop the run. That is true not only for us, but for the league as a whole, and it has been that way for years.

Our highest YPC this season came in the first Commanders game. We lost. Our worst came in the second Eagles game. We won going away. We lost two of the four games with our highest YPC. We won two of the four with our worst YPC. We allowed more than 6.0 YPC twice this season and won both games by more than two touchdowns.

League-wide, teams that averaged at least 6.0 YPC went 17-19-1 this season. Teams that averaged at least 5.0 YPC went 54-55-1 this season.

But of course, you don't care what the stats say.

 

[AdamJT13]

You are way too hung up on the stats in this case and not relying near enough on your common sense. The THREAT of Murray running the ball is what is keeping defenses off balance. If Murray was averaging one yard per carry they would key on the pass, making passing the ball more difficult, and lowering the success rate of the pass. Keeping the down and distance manageable on third down makes third downs easier to convert. The running game is a huge part of that.

If you run the ball for three yards on first down then you are going to have much greater success on the whole than of you run it for no gain on first down. This isn't rocket science. It is pretty much a given that you will, on average, convert for a first down more often when you are at 2nd and 5 than 2nd and 9.

You're too hung up on theoretical situations and what you think should happen instead of recognizing what actually happens in reality.

You say if Murray was averaging a low YPC, the defense would key on the pass, making it more difficult to pass. Never mind that Romo shredded the Eagles' and Colts' defenses while Murray was being held to his two lowest YPCs of the season.

You say that you'll convert for a first down more often from second-and-5 than from second-and-9. Never mind that we averaged far more yards and converted a much higher percentage of first downs on second-and-9 (8.94 yds, 47.2% first downs) than we did on second-and-5 (3.65 yds, 25.8% first downs). Never mind that Romo had a 144.1 rating on second-and-9 and only a 67.1 rating on second-and-5.

The point is that no matter whether you are running the ball well or poorly (or whether you are stopping the run well or poorly), the game almost always is decided by how well you pass and stop the pass. Often, that means being able to pass well when the defense knows you're going to pass and being able to stop the opponent when you know they're going to pass -- when the running game isn't going to be a factor at all.

 

[AdamJT13]

I think many of the posters here understand what you meant in your post ..... we just don't agree with the fallacy of this argument. The easiest way to disprove what you are saying is to take it to an absurdity. What you are saying is if we carry the ball 20 times for 20 yards per carry that it would have no correlation to winning the game. That would be absurd. Or if we lost 20 yards per carry 20 times that it would have no impact on winning the game. That is patently absurd Adam.

Absurdity is not reality.

Over the past 20 seasons, no team has averaged 20 yards per carry on 20 carries or more in a game. The highest is 11.0 by the Bengals in a game in 2000. They did win that game. But the next-highest is 9.8 by the Eagles last year. They lost by double digits. The next-highest after that is 9.6 by the Titans in 2009. They also lost. The next-highest after that is 9.5 by the Broncos in 2003. They lost, too. So three of the four teams to average more than 9.5 yards rushing in a game during the past 20 years lost the game. How absurd!

Conversely, and obviously, no team has lost 20 yards per carry on 20 carries or more. The lowest is 0.5 by the Jets in 2000. They did lose that game. But seven other teams in the past 20 seasons have averaged less than 0.95 yards per carry -- and all seven of them won the game. That's absurd.

Over the past 20 seasons, we're 1-3 in games when we average more than 8 yards per carry, 2-6 when we average more than 7 yards per carry and 8-15 when we average more than 6 yards per carry. Isn't that absurd?

 

[Verdict]

Absurdity is not reality.

Over the past 20 seasons, no team has averaged 20 yards per carry on 20 carries or more in a game. The highest is 11.0 by the Bengals in a game in 2000. They did win that game. But the next-highest is 9.8 by the Eagles last year. They lost by double digits. The next-highest after that is 9.6 by the Titans in 2009. They also lost. The next-highest after that is 9.5 by the Broncos in 2003. They lost, too. So three of the four teams to average more than 9.5 yards rushing in a game during the past 20 years lost the game. How absurd!

Conversely, and obviously, no team has lost 20 yards per carry on 20 carries or more. The lowest is 0.5 by the Jets in 2000. They did lose that game. But seven other teams in the past 20 seasons have averaged less than 0.95 yards per carry -- and all seven of them won the game. That's absurd.

Over the past 20 seasons, we're 1-3 in games when we average more than 8 yards per carry, 2-6 when we average more than 7 yards per carry and 8-15 when we average more than 6 yards per carry. Isn't that absurd?

Absurdity is not reality.

Over the past 20 seasons, no team has averaged 20 yards per carry on 20 carries or more in a game. The highest is 11.0 by the Bengals in a game in 2000. They did win that game. But the next-highest is 9.8 by the Eagles last year. They lost by double digits. The next-highest after that is 9.6 by the Titans in 2009. They also lost. The next-highest after that is 9.5 by the Broncos in 2003. They lost, too. So three of the four teams to average more than 9.5 yards rushing in a game during the past 20 years lost the game. How absurd!

Conversely, and obviously, no team has lost 20 yards per carry on 20 carries or more. The lowest is 0.5 by the Jets in 2000. They did lose that game. But seven other teams in the past 20 seasons have averaged less than 0.95 yards per carry -- and all seven of them won the game. That's absurd.

Over the past 20 seasons, we're 1-3 in games when we average more than 8 yards per carry, 2-6 when we average more than 7 yards per carry and 8-15 when we average more than 6 yards per carry. Isn't that absurd?

I am not saying that the stat is meaningless. I am saying that the statistic cannot be viewed in a vacuum. It is not coincidental that the Cowboys won more games this year due to the success of the running game. Moreover, the Cowboys won three Super Bowls with #22 running the ball which had a huge factor in those games.

Stats can be misleading. In this case I think anyone with any common sense would agree that the success of the running game adds to the likelihood of success. To take your position to its logical conclusion we might as well pass 100 percent of the time because that is all that matters according to you, which I think is essentially an incredulous position to take.

If you don't have some degree of success running the ball then you eventually have to abandon the run and we have seen what that gets you over time....which is a loss.

I respect your opinion, and what you bring to this board, but in this case I think you are just dead wrong and we will just have to disagree on this point.

 

[AdamJT13]

I am not saying that the stat is meaningless. I am saying that the statistic cannot be viewed in a vacuum. It is not coincidental that the Cowboys won more games this year due to the success of the running game. Moreover, the Cowboys won three Super Bowls with #22 running the ball which had a huge factor in those games.

The same thing was true back in the early '90s -- if we passed better than the opponent, we almost always won, no matter how well we ran the ball or stopped the run (as measured by any statistical means, not some undefinable, immeasurable notion of "success").

Stats can be misleading. In this case I think anyone with any common sense would agree that the success of the running game adds to the likelihood of success.

Again, you're stuck on theory instead of reality. In reality, rushing success (as measured by any statistical means) has very little effect on passing success and winning or losing. It might be surprising, but it's true. This isn't my personal opinion or my own idea, it has been proved over and over by many different analyses over the past several decades.

To take your position to its logical conclusion we might as well pass 100 percent of the time because that is all that matters according to you, which I think is essentially an incredulous position to take.

That's NOT the logical conclusion unless passing on every down makes you more efficient at passing. If rushing 80 percent of the time makes you more efficient at passing, then you should do that. If rushing 20 percent of the time makes you more efficient at passing, then you should do that. (Adjusting for game situations, obviously.) The goal is to be as efficient at passing as possible, no matter how often you pass it or run it.

If you don't have some degree of success running the ball then you eventually have to abandon the run and we have seen what that gets you over time....which is a loss.

You never "have to abandon the run" unless the clock is against you. And if you've been paying attention, not having success running the ball does not lead to a loss -- as long as you're passing it better than the opponent.

I respect your opinion, and what you bring to this board, but in this case I think you are just dead wrong and we will just have to disagree on this point.

Disagree all you want. It doesn't change the facts.

By the way, after today's game, the team that passed the ball better improved to 17-0 in our games this season. The team that ran the ball better (YPC) dropped to 9-8. And there was a grand total of one running play in the final 8:45 of the game -- when it came time to decide which team would win, it was ALL about who could pass or stop the pass. We did both and won.

 

[xwalker]

You are a very smart man Adam, but that statement is patently false. If we successfully run the ball then our chance of winning goes up. If we don't have success running the ball, then we can still win, but our chances go down. This is especially true late in the game when you need to run the ball to kill the clock. Common sense tells you that ..... I don't care what the stats say. If you can successfully run the ball it opens up the passing game and makes it much more effective. Our balanced attack is EXACTLY why Romo is making fewer mistakes and icing games.

That stat does not show when passing offensives benefited by defenses playing more men in the box against the run.

Trying to use rushing yards as a stat is not a good idea. It's the threat of a rushing game that's more important than the actual yards gained that make the rushing game important. Defenses will try to adjust to stop a great rushing threat and the passing game will benefit. That does not show up in the simplistic stats. The idea that that rushing is of minimal importance because "Passing effectively correlates to wins" is the worst misuse of statistics that I've seen in a long time. I think the "correlation" is only 80%; however, even if it were 100%, they are just not using the statistics correctly.

 

[AdamJT13]

That stat does not show when passing offensives benefited by defenses playing more men in the box against the run.

Trying to use rushing yards as a stat is not a good idea. It's the threat of a rushing game that's more important than the actual yards gained that make the rushing game important. Defenses will try to adjust to stop a great rushing threat and the passing game will benefit. That does not show up in the simplistic stats. The idea that that rushing is of minimal importance because "Passing effectively correlates to wins" is the worst misuse of statistics that I've seen in a long time. I think the "correlation" is only 80%; however, even if it were 100%, they are just not using the statistics correctly.

That is precisely the point -- rushing yards and rushing stats are just not that important. And you obviously agree.

What IS important is how effective you are at passing and stopping the pass. THAT is what almost always decides who wins the game -- regardless of any rushing stats and regardless of any "threat" of a rushing game. When it comes down to plays when the defense KNOWS it's going to be a pass -- such as almost every play in the last eight minutes of the game -- you had better be able to pass anyway, and your defense had better be able to stop the pass in those same situations. If you can do that, you'll win the vast majority of games. If you can't, you'll lose the vast majority.

 

[burmafrd]

AS Mark Twain once said

"There are lies
There are DAMN LIES
THEN there are statistics"

Adam, stats NEVER tell the whole story. NEVER.

 

[xwalker]

That is precisely the point -- rushing yards and rushing stats are just not that important. And you obviously agree.

What IS important is how effective you are at passing and stopping the pass. THAT is what almost always decides who wins the game -- regardless of any rushing stats and regardless of any "threat" of a rushing game. When it comes down to plays when the defense KNOWS it's going to be a pass -- such as almost every play in the last eight minutes of the game -- you had better be able to pass anyway, and your defense had better be able to stop the pass in those same situations. If you can do that, you'll win the vast majority of games. If you can't, you'll lose the vast majority.

I'm only saying that it is difficult to show the importance of rushing statistically. If you can find the stat for 8 men in the box vs 7, then I'll be interested. Just because you can't easily show the importance of rushing statistically, does not mean that it does not exist. Nuclear weapons exist but I couldn't tell you how to make one. Just because I can't make one does not mean that it's not possible. Just because you can't show the importance of rushing with simple statistics does not mean that it' not important. Your ignoring anything that would show the importance of the threat of rushing like 8 men in the box vs 7 because those stats don't exist.

 

[Verdict]

That stat does not show when passing offensives benefited by defenses playing more men in the box against the run.

Trying to use rushing yards as a stat is not a good idea. It's the threat of a rushing game that's more important than the actual yards gained that make the rushing game important. Defenses will try to adjust to stop a great rushing threat and the passing game will benefit. That does not show up in the simplistic stats. The idea that that rushing is of minimal importance because "Passing effectively correlates to wins" is the worst misuse of statistics that I've seen in a long time. I think the "correlation" is only 80%; however, even if it were 100%, they are just not using the statistics correctly.

Forcing teams to go to eight men in the box gives a decisive advantage to the offense in the passing game. When teams are forced to abandon the run it makes sledding much more difficult on the passing game because teams go to the nickel or dime package. I don't see why Adam insists on saying one has NOTHING to do with the other.

You have to be able to run the ball well enough to make teams respect the run. If teams can limit you to one yard per rush with their front 4, then the passing game will usually falter. It isn't how many times you run the ball that makes or breaks the running game/passing game. You have to run the ball well enough to get the defense to respect the run to maximaze the passing game,

The problem with Adam's stats is that the statistics don't tell you what situations that the stats were obtained. If you are 80 yards away with 6 seconds on the clock in the 4th quarter, then ripping off a 40 yard run is meaningless, so the run is only marginally defended. Moreover, Murray's one yard TD last night was a very important run. The stats don't tell you how important that one yard was. It is delusional not to consider the context of statistics. They are useful, but unless you understand the context they are meaningless.

 

[xwalker]

Forcing teams to go to eight men in the box gives a decisive advantage to the offense in the passing game. When teams are forced to abandon the run it makes sledding much more difficult on the passing game because teams go to the nickel or dime package. I don't see why Adam insists on saying one has NOTHING to do with the other.

You have to be able to run the ball well enough to make teams respect the run. If teams can limit you to one yard per rush with their front 4, then the passing game will usually falter. It isn't how many times you run the ball that makes or breaks the running game/passing game. You have to run the ball well enough to get the defense to respect the run to maximaze the passing game,

The problem with Adam's stats is that the statistics don't tell you what situations that the stats were obtained. If you are 80 yards away with 6 seconds on the clock in the 4th quarter, then ripping off a 40 yard run is meaningless, so the run is only marginally defended. Moreover, Murray's one yard TD last night was a very important run. The stats don't tell you how important that one yard was. It is delusional not to consider the context of statistics. They are useful, but unless you understand the context they are meaningless.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
-Mark Twain

 

[Verdict]

That is precisely the point -- rushing yards and rushing stats are just not that important. And you obviously agree.

What IS important is how effective you are at passing and stopping the pass. THAT is what almost always decides who wins the game -- regardless of any rushing stats and regardless of any "threat" of a rushing game. When it comes down to plays when the defense KNOWS it's going to be a pass -- such as almost every play in the last eight minutes of the game -- you had better be able to pass anyway, and your defense had better be able to stop the pass in those same situations. If you can do that, you'll win the vast majority of games. If you can't, you'll lose the vast majority.

What you are saying is that running the ball is irrelevant. If so, then I don't know what to tell you, my friend. That is a patently absurd statement Adam. I understand the concept of what you are saying, and to some extent the statistic is correct, but the statistic fails to take into account the effect on the passing game as if they are not interrelated.

Tell me Adam .... if you need to run the ball to kill the clock at the end of the game, does a team with a better running game have a better chance of winning the game than the same team with no running game?

 

[Verdict]

That is precisely the point -- rushing yards and rushing stats are just not that important. And you obviously agree.

What IS important is how effective you are at passing and stopping the pass. THAT is what almost always decides who wins the game -- regardless of any rushing stats and regardless of any "threat" of a rushing game. When it comes down to plays when the defense KNOWS it's going to be a pass -- such as almost every play in the last eight minutes of the game -- you had better be able to pass anyway, and your defense had better be able to stop the pass in those same situations. If you can do that, you'll win the vast majority of games. If you can't, you'll lose the vast majority.

The same thing was true back in the early '90s -- if we passed better than the opponent, we almost always won, no matter how well we ran the ball or stopped the run (as measured by any statistical means, not some undefinable, immeasurable notion of "success").



Again, you're stuck on theory instead of reality. In reality, rushing success (as measured by any statistical means) has very little effect on passing success and winning or losing. It might be surprising, but it's true. This isn't my personal opinion or my own idea, it has been proved over and over by many different analyses over the past several decades.



That's NOT the logical conclusion unless passing on every down makes you more efficient at passing. If rushing 80 percent of the time makes you more efficient at passing, then you should do that. If rushing 20 percent of the time makes you more efficient at passing, then you should do that. (Adjusting for game situations, obviously.) The goal is to be as efficient at passing as possible, no matter how often you pass it or run it.



You never "have to abandon the run" unless the clock is against you. And if you've been paying attention, not having success running the ball does not lead to a loss -- as long as you're passing it better than the opponent.




Disagree all you want. It doesn't change the facts.

By the way, after today's game, the team that passed the ball better improved to 17-0 in our games this season. The team that ran the ball better (YPC) dropped to 9-8. And there was a grand total of one running play in the final 8:45 of the game -- when it came time to decide which team would win, it was ALL about who could pass or stop the pass. We did both and won.

You are stuck on believing something statistical and can't seem to wrap your mind around a concept because you can't see it. You can't see air either, but without it you would die. If you don't think that the running game has made all the difference in our team this year, (including the statistic of winning games) then you are missing the boat.

 

[Vtwin]

You have to figure the passing yards off play action also.

How much better is the Cowboys play action passing game this year than in years past?

You absolutely need to be able to pass the ball to win. You absolutely have to have a strong threat to run to open up that passing game in order to beat the better defenses and compete for championships. Even if you don't run up the gaudy run stats.

the 2014 Dallas Cowboys are proof of that.

 

[kramskoi]

Wait, "common sense" tells you that, and you don't care what the stats say? So you admit that you don't care that the stats say your "common sense" is wrong?

Our chances of winning don't go up or down based on how well we run the ball (as measured by YPC or anything similar) or how well we stop the run. That is true not only for us, but for the league as a whole, and it has been that way for years.

Our highest YPC this season came in the first Commanders game. We lost. Our worst came in the second Eagles game. We won going away. We lost two of the four games with our highest YPC. We won two of the four with our worst YPC. We allowed more than 6.0 YPC twice this season and won both games by more than two touchdowns.

League-wide, teams that averaged at least 6.0 YPC went 17-19-1 this season. Teams that averaged at least 5.0 YPC went 54-55-1 this season.

But of course, you don't care what the stats say.

In the second Eagles game...if Philly is adamant about stopping the run game by sending more players to the box, then the passing game will naturally have less defenders and more room to operate. That by extension should mean more receptions and yardage in the passing game...less for the running game. At some point, you quit on the run and use pass because you have less defense against it. If Philly had went further and left just 2-3 players in the secondary, it is very likely that passing efficiency and production would be even higher. Cause and effect relationship in my view. The first Commanders game is not really good evidence for your theory, considering the injury to Romo. Situational football is understanding the balance required to keep defenses honest and off-balance, because tendencies invite defenses to short-circuit your offensive game-plan by correctly anticipating what you will likely resort to from a down and distance standpoint.

The Cowboys simply must run the ball to achieve and maintain balance/versatility. They have tried the 40+ attempt per game version of Romo and it failed spectacularly in 2012. The running game has helped turn him into the highest rated passer in 2014. There is a cause and effect relationship for the entire team as a result. Romo would not have finished number one in passer rating and QBR otherwise. He would have been forced to do too much and make more errors as a result.

That said, I get the gist of your theory...but I think 3rd down conversion rate is the most important measure of offensive success-efficiency as a whole. You are correct that no matter how good the Cowboys run the ball in YPC, it won't matter if they don't convert 3rd downs with regularity. Breaking off a 30 yard run followed by a 3-and-out will mean nothing for offensive-efficiency from a holistic standpoint. With stupendous o-line play, it is conceivable to pass every down, but you would not, because eventually a defense will counter with nickel or dime and blitzing galore. That means a "credible" run threat must always be maintained to keep defenses from sending the house. So I guess I am agreeing with your stance, but I don't necessarily think that success is exclusive with passing prowess alone, because defenses can take away what they decide is the most dangerous part of an offense. I think that 3rd down efficiency is a truer indication of overall offensive success, short of making 50-60 yard receptions/runs on every possession. But how many defenses will allow that type of thing? The last thing any head coach should ever want is a feast or famine offense. Those are the things of 8-8 seasons. I will say that when the Cowboys are converting 3rd downs at their season avg of 47%, the offense is having a good day...Sunday they finished at 42% (6-14) so they did some decent work in the second half.