Image: Fun stat about DeMarco Murray

[Galian Beast]

Wow, I didn't realize there was so little gap between us and the Jets.

There is a bigger gap than you think. They can only run the ball, where as we're a balanced offense. You also have to remember that Geno Smith has been running the ball as well.

This is why they made the trade for Harvin. Harvin and Decker is a decent enough wide receiver corps, but they still don't have a QB. I'm surprised that Smith played against the Patriots. I think Vick could have won that game as long as he has knocked the rust off.

The Jets #1 goal next year should be getting a QB. It's interesting to think what this team would have looked like had they been able to get Peyton Manning, but they also didn't even try to get Carson Palmer or Matt Moore. Their drafting of Geno Smith reeked of desperation just as the Bills did in drafting EJ Manuel.

 

[percyhoward]

But for the Cowboys, they have a very good quarterback and is able to integrate a team benefiting running game as well. That is still pretty important...

To sum up, running well benefits the team, and it's pretty important, and if you can't do both well, you'd rather be able to pass well.

 

[DiResta]

another fun stat about Murray

 

[xwalker]

Trade deadline is coming up.

Would you trade Murray for a 1st? Two 1sts ????

Replace Minnesota with TBD and update the years and I'd consider it.

• Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1990
• Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1990
• Minnesota's 6th round pick in 1990
• Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1991
• Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1991
• Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1992
• Minnesota's 3rd round pick in 1992
• Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1993

 

[cowboys2233]

I think too much is on the line for the current direction, to even consider losing a potentially playoff team.

Exactly. This is all fantasy football gibberish, put forth by people who would rather play fantasy football than focus on our current team and how successful they can be playing actual football games this year. I'm sure these same folks would have done the same thing during Emmitt's holdout back in the day. What's Emmitt worth? A first rounder, two first rounders? Maybe we should trade him now!

Didn't Garrett just get done talking about truly living in the moment? Not focusing on what has happened or what may happen but putting every ounce of attention on the here and now? Some of you would do well to practice this - you're really missing out on some good things.

 

[xwalker]

Top 3 rushing teams: 9-10
Top 3 pass rating teams: 13-4

Top 5 rushing teams: 17-14
Top 5 pass rating teams: 21-6-1

Top 10 rushing teams: 33-27
Top 10 pass rating teams: 40-16-1

There are three teams that rank among the top 10 in pass rating, but are bottom 10 in rushing yards (GB, Den, SD), and they're a combined 13-4.

There are three teams that rank among the top 10 in rushing yards, but are bottom 10 in pass rating (NYJ, Hou, Min). None of them has a winning record.

And no, that doesn't mean that how well you run the ball is completely unimportant. Running well obviously benefits a team. But if you can't throw it, you won't win many games. You'd rather be good at both, but if you can only be good at one, it's obvious which one you would choose.

Yes, it's obvious that teams must be able to pass to win consistently. When the average game is around 100 yards rushing and 300 yards passing it's obvious that 300 is bigger than 100.

Team's with terrible QBs just throw off the stats. The Jets could run for 200 yard per game and it's not going to make Geno Smith a great QB. What's important is how a specific good QB does with and without the threat of a strong rushing attack.

The issue is that rushing and passing are not independent variables. They're interdependent. The other issue is that it's the threat of a good rushing attack that's important, not the total yards gained. Defenses adjust dynamically to contain rushing which makes passing easier. That's very difficult to measure statistically.

How do you statistically measure the following things that a strong rushing threat causes?
8 men in the box vs 7.
DL that delay their pass rush to play run 1st style defense.
LBs that play closer to the line to defend the run which causes more space to complete passes behind them.
Defenses that play more base personnel (3 LBs) vs Nickel (more DBs) to contain a strong rushing attack.

Examples:

Game 1: Winner has 50 yards rushing, 300 yards passing. Losing defense plays 8 men in the box the majority of the game.

Game 2: Winner has 50 yards rushing, 300 yards passing. Losing defense plays 7 men in the box the majority of the game.

It's obvious that the game 1 winner has a stronger rushing threat than the game 2 winner, but it's impossible to ascertain this information just looking at passing and rushing statistics. The game 1 winner is highly likely to have had more than 50 yards rushing if playing against 7 men in the box. The game 2 winner is highly likely to have had less than 50 yards rushing if playing against 8 men in the box.

 

[percyhoward]

Yes, it's obvious that teams must be able to pass to win consistently. When the average game is around 100 yards rushing and 300 yards passing it's obvious that 300 is bigger than 100.

Yards don't win games. The last two years, teams that throw for 300+ yards are only 79-66-1.

Teams with a 100+ passer rating are 171-46-1 over that span, no matter how many yards they had.

Anyway, as I've said, running well (in your words, having a legitimate rushing threat) benefits a team. I think by definition anything your team does well helps it. My original point was that, if you could only have one -- a good passing attack or a good rushing attack -- you'd choose the former because it means you'll win more games. And we have to assume the plays in these games would be against a variety of defensive schemes and personnel groups, depending on opponent and game situation.

Dallas is 5-1, and the running game is one of several reasons. Some would say it isn't, some would say it's the main reason. It was that second group I was talking to.

 

[danielofthesaints]

Wouldn't he be 5th? Can't really count Dallas since most of that is Murray.

Yes, he would be 5th, not 6th.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Wow, I didn't realize there was so little gap between us and the Jets.

Trade deadline is coming up.

Would you trade Murray for a 1st? Two 1sts ????

Yes.

 

[xwalker]

Yards don't win games. The last two years, teams that throw for 300+ yards are only 79-66-1.

Teams with a 100+ passer rating are 171-46-1 over that span, no matter how many yards they had.

Anyway, as I've said, running well (in your words, having a legitimate rushing threat) benefits a team. I think by definition anything your team does well helps it. My original point was that, if you could only have one -- a good passing attack or a good rushing attack -- you'd choose the former because it means you'll win more games. And we have to assume the plays in these games would be against a variety of defensive schemes and personnel groups, depending on opponent and game situation.

Dallas is 5-1, and the running game is one of several reasons. Some would say it isn't, some would say it's the main reason. It was that second group I was talking to.

I agree that if you had to choose 1 to be good at, it would have to be passing; however, some people are convinced that rushing has minimal importance in the modern NFL which I maintain is not true.

I maintain that the statistic that passing effectively = wins can't just be inverted to conclude something about the importance or lack of importance of a strong rushing threat. This statistic only proves something about passing but doesn't prove anything about rushing. A lack of correlation between rushing yardage and winning is not proof of anything. It just means that rushing yardage is a simplistic statistic. Now if somebody could come up with the ability to develop a "rusher rating" that accounts for 7 men in the box vs 8, DL playing run first vs pass rush first, etc,, then that would be interesting.

 

[EST_1986]

Trade deadline is coming up.

Would you trade Murray for a 1st? Two 1sts ????

Hell yea for two 1sts and I love Murray

 

[percyhoward]

I agree that if you had to choose 1 to be good at, it would have to be passing; however, some people are convinced that rushing has minimal importance in the modern NFL which I maintain is not true.

Yeah, that's that first school of thought that I was referring to -- the one that says our improved running game has played no significant part in building a 5-1 record. That's going too far in the other direction. We had the ball at midfield with 4:45 left in a game that we trailed, and we scored the next 10 points without dropping back to pass even once.

I'd call that significant.

 

[CCBoy]

I agree that if you had to choose 1 to be good at, it would have to be passing; however, some people are convinced that rushing has minimal importance in the modern NFL which I maintain is not true.

I maintain that the statistic that passing effectively = wins can't just be inverted to conclude something about the importance or lack of importance of a strong rushing threat. This statistic only proves something about passing but doesn't prove anything about rushing. A lack of correlation between rushing yardage and winning is not proof of anything. It just means that rushing yardage is a simplistic statistic. Now if somebody could come up with the ability to develop a "rusher rating" that accounts for 7 men in the box vs 8, DL playing run first vs pass rush first, etc,, then that would be interesting.

There could easily be a directed addition including tendency such as one's own rushing ability, (domination of clock), expanded to how well an opponent runs in a game, and then a dominant snapshot of respective quarterback ratings.

A proportion of merit could be arrived at through history of wins resulting with focused statistics...at least a value for role of contributing value could be arrived at.

 

[Red Dragon]

Two 1sts for Murray, yes. One, no.