Detroit has the best run defense in the NFL

[wick]

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.

But it's simply not true. Here's our adjusted net yards per pass and yards per rush as a percentage improvement or decline over the opponents':

2014 - ANY/A: +28.4%; YPC: +9.5%
2013 - ANY/A: -9.0%; YPC: -4.3%

That was a 37.4 point turnaround in the passing game compared to a 13.8 percent improvement in the running game. Compared to our opponents, we passed the ball dramatically better in 2014 than in 2013. Without looking it up, I'd guess that was quite possibly the single best improvement by any passing or running game in the entire NFL.

The passing game is very obviously what made all the different in our team this season.

 

[Verdict]

But it's simply not true. Here's our adjusted net yards per pass and yards per rush as a percentage improvement or decline over the opponents':

2014 - ANY/A: +28.4%; YPC: +9.5%
2013 - ANY/A: -9.0%; YPC: -4.3%

That was a 37.4 point turnaround in the passing game compared to a 13.8 percent improvement in the running game. Compared to our opponents, we passed the ball dramatically better in 2014 than in 2013. Without looking it up, I'd guess that was quite possibly the single best improvement by any passing or running game in the entire NFL.

The passing game is very obviously what made all the different in our team this season.

So you don't think that our improved running game (and NFL LEADING RUNNING BACK) had anything to with the improved passing game?

 

[AdamJT13]

Adam, stats NEVER tell the whole story. NEVER.

I never said they did.

 

[AdamJT13]

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.

I'm still not sure why you're arguing with me, since we agree that statistical measurements of "rushing success" are virtually irrelevant when it comes to winning or losing in the NFL.

 

[BoysfanfromCanada]

Probably catching the tail end of this discussion, but I think even romo will say the reason the passing game has done so well is because of the extra safeties sent in to keep the running game from getting going has helped get Dez single coverage along with Witten and Beasley

 

[AdamJT13]

What you are saying is that running the ball is irrelevant.

No, I've never said that. I said how WELL you run the ball is virtually irrelevant. The only time it really matters is to convert on short yardage, and that usually just means being able to get 1 or 2 yards when you need it.

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?

Maybe slightly, but a team almost always has to pass better than the opponent just to be IN a situation to run out the clock. Even for the best rushing teams, it's difficult to kill the clock completely just by running in those situations. And if the opponent gets the ball back, it's almost certainly not going to be your run defense that determines whether you blow the lead -- it's going to be your pass defense.

 

[AdamJT13]

The problem with Adam's stats is that the statistics don't tell you what situations that the stats were obtained.

They're not MY stats. Like I said, there have been many, many analyses done since at least the late 1980s, and they all come to basically the same conclusions. And several of them have tracked the stats throughout games -- early, middle, late, etc. Leads generally are built when one team passes better than the other, leads generally are maintained by the team that passes better than the other, and games generally are won by teams that pass better than the other. In most games, which team runs better early, in the middle or late doesn't really affect the scoreboard.

 

[AdamJT13]

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.

No, you don't. Plenty of teams have been able to pass and stop the pass well enough to compete for championships without being able to run well or stop the run well.

 

[AdamJT13]

So you don't think that our improved running game (and NFL LEADING RUNNING BACK) had anything to with the improved passing game?

Maybe, maybe not. Just look at Romo's passer ratings in situations when the defense KNOWS we're going to pass, compared with his ratings in those same situations last season --

118.5 in the last two minutes of a half -- up from 85.7
117.1 on third down -- up from 76.7
100.0 on third-and-6 or more -- up from 60.4
91.9 on third/fourth-and-9 or more -- up from 55.4
88.4 on third-and-11 or more -- up from 51.7


All of those ratings are more than 30 points higher this season that they were last season. Maybe we're so much better at passing this season just because we're that much better at passing.

 

[xwalker]

I'm still not sure why you're arguing with me, since we agree that statistical measurements of "rushing success" are virtually irrelevant when it comes to winning or losing in the NFL.

Because you have implied many times that rushing itself is of minimal importance to winning games. My point is that you just don't have the ability to show the importance of rushing from the available statistics, but that has Zero bearing on the actual importance of a strong rushing threat. Again I say threat, because defenses adjust in an attempt to limit rushing yardage and in the simple example defenses play 8 in the box against a strong rushing threat and 7 in the box against a weak rushing threat. The team with the strong rushing threat and the team with the weak rushing threat might end up with the same amount of yards gained in a given game, but the team with the weak rushing threat allowed the defense to use an extra man in coverage. The result is that the offense with the strong rushing threat was passing against a defense that was short handed in coverage. Statistically that shows up as that team winning and having a more effective passing game. The fact that the rushing threat allowed them to have a more effective passing game does not show up in the simple statistics.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Man, this discussion takes me back a few years.

Carry on...........

 

[xwalker]

But it's simply not true. Here's our adjusted net yards per pass and yards per rush as a percentage improvement or decline over the opponents':

2014 - ANY/A: +28.4%; YPC: +9.5%
2013 - ANY/A: -9.0%; YPC: -4.3%

That was a 37.4 point turnaround in the passing game compared to a 13.8 percent improvement in the running game. Compared to our opponents, we passed the ball dramatically better in 2014 than in 2013. Without looking it up, I'd guess that was quite possibly the single best improvement by any passing or running game in the entire NFL.

The passing game is very obviously what made all the different in our team this season.

Rushing yardage is a poor measurement of the running game. Defenses adjust to team with a great running game threat. The simple example is 8 men in the box vs 7 men in the box. Two difference offenses could have the same rushing yardage against the same defense, but one might have done it with that defense playing 8 men in the box while the other offense did it with 7 men in the box. The rushing statistics would be the same but the threat of the better rushing team cause the defense to go short handed defending the pass.

 

[wick]

Rushing yardage is a poor measurement of the running game. Defenses adjust to team with a great running game threat. The simple example is 8 men in the box vs 7 men in the box. Two difference offenses could have the same rushing yardage against the same defense, but one might have done it with that defense playing 8 men in the box while the other offense did it with 7 men in the box. The rushing statistics would be the same but the threat of the better rushing team cause the defense to go short handed defending the pass.

Defenses adjust based on formation and scouting tendencies. If a team runs the ball 80 percent of the time from a two tight end formation, then the defense is likely to commit extra defenders to stop the run. This is true whether the offense has run the ball very well or not. Again, though, we come back to a central theme:

• The theory that running success should be an important part of the game
• The fact that it's just not

It's a waste of time to try to come up with more theories that seek to explain why running success should be important given the mountains of evidence that proves it is not. Instead, that effort should be spent coming up for theories to explain why running success is not important. Perhaps it's true that running the ball at all--regardless of success or failure--is important.

 

[AdamJT13]

Because you have implied many times that rushing itself is of minimal importance to winning games.

Nope, I've never said that. I've made it very clear that HOW WELL you run the ball within a game -- as measured statistically -- is of minimal importance to winning THAT game. Whether we get stuffed for 2.0 yards per carry or run wild for 6.0 per carry (and whether we give up 2.0 or 6.0 on defense) has very little impact on whether we win or lose. Which team averaged a higher YPC in a game has almost no effect on winning or losing. Which team PASSES better statistically determines who wins in the vast majority of games. That is clearly true, and that is the point that I (and others) have been making for years and years.

My point is that you just don't have the ability to show the importance of rushing from the available statistics, but that has Zero bearing on the actual importance of a strong rushing threat. Again I say threat, because defenses adjust in an attempt to limit rushing yardage and in the simple example defenses play 8 in the box against a strong rushing threat and 7 in the box against a weak rushing threat. The team with the strong rushing threat and the team with the weak rushing threat might end up with the same amount of yards gained in a given game, but the team with the weak rushing threat allowed the defense to use an extra man in coverage. The result is that the offense with the strong rushing threat was passing against a defense that was short handed in coverage. Statistically that shows up as that team winning and having a more effective passing game. The fact that the rushing threat allowed them to have a more effective passing game does not show up in the simple statistics.

So, which games did we have a "strong rushing threat" this season? Which games did we not? Which games did we face a strong rushing threat, and which games did we not? I'm just wondering what constitutes a "threat" in your mind.

In reality, defenses react as much (or more) to game situations, personnel, formations, play-calling and execution as they do to a perceived "threat" based on prior success. And that "threat" exists only in some situations, and only to a certain degree. Many (if not most) games are decided by the situations when there is almost NO threat of a run -- third-and-long, late in the game, etc. The team that can execute in those must-pass situations on offense and defense is much more likely to win.

 

[xwalker]

Nope, I've never said that. I've made it very clear that HOW WELL you run the ball within a game -- as measured statistically -- is of minimal importance to winning THAT game. Whether we get stuffed for 2.0 yards per carry or run wild for 6.0 per carry (and whether we give up 2.0 or 6.0 on defense) has very little impact on whether we win or lose. Which team averaged a higher YPC in a game has almost no effect on winning or losing. Which team PASSES better statistically determines who wins in the vast majority of games. That is clearly true, and that is the point that I (and others) have been making for years and years.

Here you're saying that you didn't say in the past that running game is unimportant.

In reality, defenses react as much (or more) to game situations, personnel, formations, play-calling and execution as they do to a perceived "threat" based on prior success. And that "threat" exists only in some situations, and only to a certain degree. Many (if not most) games are decided by the situations when there is almost NO threat of a run -- third-and-long, late in the game, etc. The team that can execute in those must-pass situations on offense and defense is much more likely to win.

Now, you immediately go back to saying or at least inferring that the running game is indeed unimportant.

Just because something is situation-ally important, doesn't mean that you can just expand that outside of those situations. Making field goals is important when it's time to make field goals, 4th down, late in the game etc.. That doesn't indicate that field goals are more important than rushing or passing.

You're ignoring all of the intangible reasons rushing is important. It helps with time of possession, it tires the defense containing the run in part because it lets the OLine tee off on the DLine and physically beat them down, etc..

As I've said before, if you think rushing is unimportant, just try replacing the MLB with at CB.

So, which games did we have a "strong rushing threat" this season? Which games did we not? Which games did we face a strong rushing threat, and which games did we not? I'm just wondering what constitutes a "threat" in your mind.

As I said before, it's not something that you can measure with simple statistics. To my knowledge there are no stats on 7 men in the box vs 8, pass rushers delaying their rush watching for the run, etc..

Summary: Obviously, ALL NFL teams would disagree with your concept that rushing is of minimal importance; otherwise, they would just pass all of the time. If you want to say the importance is 60-40 passing/rushing, then people might agree with that being a reasonable concept, but it's not 90-10 or 100-0.

Almost everybody including many ex NFL coaches and players believe that the key to the Cowboys success this season has been the commitment to the running game. Those people are considered experts on the subject.

 

[xwalker]

Defenses adjust based on formation and scouting tendencies. If a team runs the ball 80 percent of the time from a two tight end formation, then the defense is likely to commit extra defenders to stop the run. This is true whether the offense has run the ball very well or not. Again, though, we come back to a central theme:

• The theory that running success should be an important part of the game
• The fact that it's just not

It's a waste of time to try to come up with more theories that seek to explain why running success should be important given the mountains of evidence that proves it is not. Instead, that effort should be spent coming up for theories to explain why running success is not important. Perhaps it's true that running the ball at all--regardless of success or failure--is important.

Obviously all NFL teams disagree with you. You're basically saying that you are smarter than all NFL teams.

 

[wick]

Obviously all NFL teams disagree with you. You're basically saying that you are smarter than all NFL teams.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. The statistical evidence says what it says, and the reams of data collected over the last quarter century are sufficiently large enough to enable us to draw conclusions. How well you run or stop the run doesn't determine the outcome of games. Period. That's not an opinion, it's fact based on the evidence of what has actually transpired on the field. You are arguing what you think should be true or what you've always been told must be true or maybe just what you wish were true. However, none of that makes it actually true because it's not.

 

[AdamJT13]

Here you're saying that you didn't say in the past that running game is unimportant.

Now, you immediately go back to saying or at least inferring that the running game is indeed unimportant.

I'm not sure why you're confusing measurable rushing success with the concept of rushing in general.

You're ignoring all of the intangible reasons rushing is important. It helps with time of possession, it tires the defense containing the run in part because it lets the OLine tee off on the DLine and physically beat them down, etc..

Again, whatever is achieved by running the ball is minimally increased (if at all) by the statistical success of those runs.

Obviously, ALL NFL teams would disagree with your concept that rushing is of minimal importance; otherwise, they would just pass all of the time.

Why would they do that? Do you seriously think teams would be more effective passing the ball if they passed on every single down?

Almost everybody including many ex NFL coaches and players believe that the key to the Cowboys success this season has been the commitment to the running game. Those people are considered experts on the subject.

A "commitment to the running game" has nothing to do with anything I've said.

 

[xwalker]

I'm not sure why you're confusing measurable rushing success with the concept of rushing in general.

Again, whatever is achieved by running the ball is minimally increased (if at all) by the statistical success of those runs.

Why would they do that? Do you seriously think teams would be more effective passing the ball if they passed on every single down?

A "commitment to the running game" has nothing to do with anything I've said.

I'm not confusing anything. You are misleading people with statements that you've made in the past which infer that rushing is of minimal importance to winning.

How about you make a definitive statement here in 1 post as a reference? Then we can discuss your theory without trying to sort through multiple posts of what you did or didn't "say".

 

[AdamJT13]

I'm not confusing anything. You are misleading people with statements that you've made in the past which infer that rushing is of minimal importance to winning.

How about you make a definitive statement here in 1 post as a reference? Then we can discuss your theory without trying to sort through multiple posts of what you did or didn't "say".

I'm not misleading anyone, and I've made the SAME definitive statement over and over and over for years and years -- since long before this message board even existed: The key to winning games in the NFL is passing the ball more effectively than your opponent. I have a specific stat that I like to use and which I think is the most correlative (net passing yards minus 50 yards per interception, divided by pass plays including sacks), but other comprehensive passing stats are highly correlative as well. Along with that, how well you run or stop the run within a game (as measured by YPC) has very little to do with who wins or loses. As a corollary, how well you run or stop the run (as measured by YPC) has a low correlation with how well you're able to pass or stop the pass in that game.

Note that NONE of that has anything to do with how often you run or pass, or how often your opponent runs or passes. Whether you run it 15 times or 50, and whether you pass it 15 times or 50, you still need to pass it better than your opponent to win in the vast majority of games. If you're more successful passing 40 times than you are passing 20 times, then do that, or vice-versa, but whatever maximizes your passing efficiency is what will help you win.

Also note that this refers to BOTH sides of the ball, which seems to be ignored by many people who refuse to accept it as fact. No matter what you do on offense, if your defense allows the opponent to pass the ball better than you do, you'll lose the vast majority of games.

Still confused?