Is the defense actually better?

[burmafrd]

There are some obvious problems with the concept that "passing more efficiently wins games regardless of the running game" concept.

If that were 100% correct, then LBs and Safeties would be replaced by CBs.

What should really be said is that "the effect of the running game can't easily be determined using statistics".

Passing more efficiently = wins is similar to say scoring more points = wins.

The running game obviously has an effect on the passing game. What would a team's passing efficiency be if all of the LBs and Safeties were replaced by QBs? Obviously, any offense would be less efficient passing against a defense of with 7 CBs.

You could probably use statistics that would make it appear that more rushing attempts in the 4th quarter lead to blowout wins. In reality, we know that teams that are way ahead on the scoreboard in the 4th quarter often run the ball more than they normally would. We know that to be true, but the statistics can't show the difference in cause and effect.

Defenses dynamically adjust to good rushing teams and their pass coverage often suffers, but it's really difficult to show using simple statistics. The same defense might play 2 offenses and limit the running game of both offenses to 50 yards; however, if the defense played 8 men in the box against 1 offense and played 7 men in the box against the other offense, then the offense that faced 7 men in the box would have an advantage in the passing game, but it wouldn't show up in the rushing statistics.

the passing is all that matters types refuse to look at anything that shows them wrong. Football is such a complicated sport with so many variables that no one or two stats can be considered gospel unlike some here think.

and despite the fact that just about every single great coach has told them they are wrong

 

[xwalker]

.....

Passing efficiently = wins has no bearing how how important running the ball is to winning.

The threat of Rushing Success affects Passing Success. That indicates that this issue is at least a 2 variable equation. Passing efficiently = wins is a 1 variable equation.

Can can't just take a simple 1 variable equation of passing success = wins and conclude the the opposite (rushing is unimportant) is true.

The fact that you can't easily show how rushing affects passing statistically, does not mean that it doesn't.

An offense should have more success passing against an 8 man front than against a 7 man front. This is just one simple example of how rushing success or the threat of rushing success affects passing success. One reason you're not going to find a correlation to rushing success and wins is because defenses adjust to limit rushing success. The actual success (statistically) may often have occurred in previous games or may occur early in games, but defenses eventually adjust and the passing offense benefits.

The threat of rushing success causes defenses to do a number of things to combat it.
1. 8 men in the box instead of 7.
2. Delayed pass rushing with DL playing run 1st.
3. Personnel changes. Bigger, slower LBs in place of smaller quicker ones.
4. More LBs on the field (base vs Nickel Personnel).
5. Etc..

The readily available statistics don't show things like a DL's pass rush being limited because they are playing a defend the run first style.

NFL teams have access to all these statistics and more. If rushing really didn't matter, then defensive personnel would definitely change over time. It might not be 7 true CBs on the back end, but I don't think anybody believes that 3 LBs, 2 Safeties and 2 CBs is the best defense against the pass. In this scenario, they wouldn't be backup CBs, they would be starters that are replacing LBs on the team. Multiple CBs would be getting paid the money that is now spent on LBs.

I'm not disputing the concept that passing effectively = wins. It can be true 100% of the time or 80%, whatever the number it doesn't indicate that rushing is unimportant. It's definitely not proving that rushing is unimportant. It's not proving anything about rushing, it's only proving something about passing.

The fact that a terrible QB's team still loses when his team rushes well is really unrelated to how a QB like Romo fares with a bad rushing attack vs a good rushing attack. Even if somebody did put together the statistics for the same QB with and without a good rushing attack, it would be difficult to do statistically because defenses adjust to limit rushing. The statistics would need to include things like 8 vs 7 men in the box, personnel groups by the defense, etc..

Summary: Defenses adjust to contain better rushing teams and that affects passing. Readily available statistics can't quantify that relationship.

 

[Idgit]

There are some obvious problems with the concept that "passing more efficiently wins games regardless of the running game" concept.

If that were 100% correct, then LBs and Safeties would be replaced by CBs.

What should really be said is that "the effect of the running game can't easily be determined using statistics".

Passing more efficiently = wins is similar to say scoring more points = wins.

The running game obviously has an effect on the passing game. What would a team's passing efficiency be if all of the LBs and Safeties were replaced by QBs? Obviously, any offense would be less efficient passing against a defense of with 7 CBs.

You could probably use statistics that would make it appear that more rushing attempts in the 4th quarter lead to blowout wins. In reality, we know that teams that are way ahead on the scoreboard in the 4th quarter often run the ball more than they normally would. We know that to be true, but the statistics can't show the difference in cause and effect.

Defenses dynamically adjust to good rushing teams and their pass coverage often suffers, but it's really difficult to show using simple statistics. The same defense might play 2 offenses and limit the running game of both offenses to 50 yards; however, if the defense played 8 men in the box against 1 offense and played 7 men in the box against the other offense, then the offense that faced 7 men in the box would have an advantage in the passing game, but it wouldn't show up in the rushing statistics.

Adam already answered this in some detail, but his point that you can and should assume NFL coaches to be rational actors is the obvious reason why the statistics hold up. While you're right that if they behaved irrationally, then the situation could very likely be different, it's pretty safe to say that-since their livelihood depends on them behaving rationally-NFL defensive coaches are going to field defenses tailored to game situations and downs and distances.

And I always have to make the distinction in these threads that there's an important difference between saying 'running effectiveness doesn't correlate strongly to winning' and saying 'the running game is not important.' There are a ton of game situations where down and distance indicate that you could or should run the ball to convert or to get into a more advantageous position to convert. Where the reality is that that 3-5 yards makes a big difference on what you might do next.

If we were talking about another field other than football, maybe, the concept wouldn't be so alien. The guy that pours the concrete foundation for your house, for example. He doesn't have be the best concrete guy in the business. Your house isn't going to be measurably better if you have the best slab on the block. But we'd all obviously understand that's not the same thing as saying your foundation isn't important or that proof of that is that--if that were the case--contractors would start building houses without foundations. The running game is very, very important in football, and the point being made is that the relative effectiveness of that running game hasn't been demonstrated to make your team more likely to win a game.

I'll readily concede that it might well be the case that the statistics we have aren't sufficiently granular to unpack the importance of an effective running game to winning football. It seems intuitively likely to be the case to me, too. But absent data to support that assertion, it makes a lot more sense to make judgement off of the best data available right now, and that all says it's passing effectiveness that wins ball games and that, however well you run it, you run the ball to get into situations where you can be more effective passing the ball to win.

 

[Idgit]

the passing is all that matters types refuse to look at anything that shows them wrong. Football is such a complicated sport with so many variables that no one or two stats can be considered gospel unlike some here think.

and despite the fact that just about every single great coach has told them they are wrong

This is another version of the misinterpretation that anybody thinks 'the running game doesn't matter,' or that 'the passing game is all that matters.' That's not what the argument is.

too many variables for you to claim anything can be proven by stats

Stats don't prove anything, anyway. They attempt to measure them. The problem is, stats can also measure things that aren't important. They can be measured incorrectly. They can measure insufficiently. And people can draw the wrong conclusions from the data and reach the wrong conclusion as a result. The trick is to try to eliminate the variables you can eliminate in coming up with your data, and then making the best possible informed decision from there. In this case, I believe what's being measured is relevant. I believe the data is probably accurate. I'm not convinced that we're measuring the data with sufficient granularity to be entirely confident in the conclusion, honestly. But we've had this debate many times on this forum, and I've seen in detailed eloquently in blogs and discussed elsewhere over the years. I've yet to come across a compelling explanation for how the data is flawed or a more insightful way to cut the data to really isolate situations where an effective running game does help a team win football games. When I do, I'll be happy to change my position, though. I promise.

 

[burmafrd]

This is another version of the misinterpretation that anybody thinks 'the running game doesn't matter,' or that 'the passing game is all that matters.' That's not what the argument is.



Stats don't prove anything, anyway. They attempt to measure them. The problem is, stats can also measure things that aren't important. They can be measured incorrectly. They can measure insufficiently. And people can draw the wrong conclusions from the data and reach the wrong conclusion as a result. The trick is to try to eliminate the variables you can eliminate in coming up with your data, and then making the best possible informed decision from there. In this case, I believe what's being measured is relevant. I believe the data is probably accurate. I'm not convinced that we're measuring the data with sufficient granularity to be entirely confident in the conclusion, honestly. But we've had this debate many times on this forum, and I've seen in detailed eloquently in blogs and discussed elsewhere over the years. I've yet to come across a compelling explanation for how the data is flawed or a more insightful way to cut the data to really isolate situations where an effective running game does help a team win football games. When I do, I'll be happy to change my position, though. I promise.

and where are your stats to back up your claim. Equally as vague. You are the one proclaiming this; the burden of proof is on you

 

[BlindFaith]

Defining pass efficiency and run efficiency is the key here. Xwalker has done a great job of explaining the effect of having a good running game. But what is a great running game?

The key to winning in football is to score more points than the other team. We can all agree on that. So ideally, you would score with every possession you have and stop the other team from scoring on every possession they have. But that doesn't happen. Why?

Drives stall out. You don't get a first down and have to punt. Why is this and how would you prevent it from happening?

It comes down to limiting plays with 0 or negative gains. Always moving the ball forward. So how do you best do that?

Running - The key stat in running the ball is to have a positive gain on every carry. I don't know if there is a breakdown of this anywhere, stat guys chime in if there is. If you have an offense that has no 0 or negative rushing plays, and they average 4 yards a carry, then thats a first down every drive and a score every drive. There are no incompletions when running the ball. I'll get to the relevance of that in a moment. And if you don't fumble the ball, running is the safest and most efficient way to score - provided you don't have 0 or negative plays.

Passing - We can all agree that pass yards per play are higher than rush yards per play. By most accounts, 2 to 1. Big gains are more common on pass plays than run plays. But a very good game for a QB passing the ball is a 65% completion percentage. That means at the very best, there will still be 35% of all passes that are incomplete. Those are 0 yards gained. Typically the QB is sacked at least once a game. Those are negative yard plays. Now add in the QB being pressured, tipped balls, interceptions - all of which are added risk to result in actually turning the ball over. QBs throw more interceptions than running backs fumble - typically. Passing also puts your QB at a greater risk of getting hurt than if he simply handed the ball off.

Passing used as running - Passing stats also account for plays that are really designed to accomplish what a run play does, or utilizes the running back. I'm talking about quick screens and check downs. Sure, they came via a pass, but to me those are really more equated to accomplish the same thing as a running play.

As Xwalker explained, running the ball efficiently - no 0 or negative yard plays - forces a defense to try and stop it. Because if you are gaining 4 yards every play, you will score at will. When the defense commits to stopping the run, it opens up the passing game and makes it less risky to attempt. And passing the ball does result in larger gains per play, provided its a completion. That's why have a good QB is important. To complete a high percentage of passes, not throw interceptions.

Rushing the ball well also allows an offense to PUSH the action. Offensive lineman much prefer to run block than pass block because they can be aggressive, they can hit and punish. This wears down a defense. It tires them out. Making their pass rush much less effective.

So it's not about the number of yards, either passing or rushing. Its about limiting 0 or negative plays. Rushing the ball well is more efficient than passing the ball to accomplish that.

 

[Idgit]

and where are your stats to back up your claim. Equally as vague. You are the one proclaiming this; the burden of proof is on you

The data on how passing effectiveness differential correlates to wins in the NFL is well established, and has been presented many times on this forum. I think most of us were picking up where that left off, since nobody was really disputing it, but there's a lot of good stuff out there if you just google 'passing effectiveness differential correlation winning nfl.' Here's one that's got some decent graphs of the efficiency data: http://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-nfl-teams-make-and-win-in-the-playoffs/ as an example, anyway.

 

[BlindFaith]

The data on how passing effectiveness differential correlates to wins in the NFL is well established, and has been presented many times on this forum. I think most of us were picking up where that left off, since nobody was really disputing it, but there's a lot of good stuff out there if you just google 'passing effectiveness differential correlation winning nfl.' Here's one that's got some decent graphs of the efficiency data: http://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-nfl-teams-make-and-win-in-the-playoffs/ as an example, anyway.

If you read the comments section you will see many holes in this argument, and many more not even addressed.

 

[BlindFaith]

The data on how passing effectiveness differential correlates to wins in the NFL is well established, and has been presented many times on this forum. I think most of us were picking up where that left off, since nobody was really disputing it, but there's a lot of good stuff out there if you just google 'passing effectiveness differential correlation winning nfl.' Here's one that's got some decent graphs of the efficiency data: http://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-nfl-teams-make-and-win-in-the-playoffs/ as an example, anyway.

Here's a good article. It's using college football as the example so it's not 100% spot on, but the underlying logic is good.
http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2006/07/runpass-balance-and-little-game-theory.html

 

[erod]

Yards are a horrible way to judge defenses.

Look at turnovers, 3rd down percentage, and points per drive.

And yes, this defense is much better, and with Lawrence and Brent, it will be even moreso soon.

 

[30yrheel]

Biggest improvement is that they're not on the field as much due to time of possesion.

 

[Doomsday101]

Biggest improvement is that they're not on the field as much due to time of possesion.

True but part of winning TOP is defense winning 3rd down battles, if they lose the 3rd down battles the TOP is much closer.

 

[5Stars]

The defense this season is better because of Attitude!

The worst defense in the History of the NFL? Seriously?

That's what they had to put up with all off season. Themselves, the media, and their own fans. Disgraceful.

Now, it seems that they want to get that bad taste out of their mouth. And, help is on the way.

 

[percyhoward]

Biggest improvement is that they're not on the field as much due to time of possesion.

That's why you look drive-by-drive instead of game-by-game. Our opponent's average possession is much shorter. That's not an effect of our offense, which obviously isn't even on the field during an opponent's possession.

 

[DanteEXT]

Defining pass efficiency and run efficiency is the key here. Xwalker has done a great job of explaining the effect of having a good running game. But what is a great running game?

The key to winning in football is to score more points than the other team. We can all agree on that. So ideally, you would score with every possession you have and stop the other team from scoring on every possession they have. But that doesn't happen. Why?

Drives stall out. You don't get a first down and have to punt. Why is this and how would you prevent it from happening?

It comes down to limiting plays with 0 or negative gains. Always moving the ball forward. So how do you best do that?

Running - The key stat in running the ball is to have a positive gain on every carry. I don't know if there is a breakdown of this anywhere, stat guys chime in if there is. If you have an offense that has no 0 or negative rushing plays, and they average 4 yards a carry, then thats a first down every drive and a score every drive. There are no incompletions when running the ball. I'll get to the relevance of that in a moment. And if you don't fumble the ball, running is the safest and most efficient way to score - provided you don't have 0 or negative plays.

Passing - We can all agree that pass yards per play are higher than rush yards per play. By most accounts, 2 to 1. Big gains are more common on pass plays than run plays. But a very good game for a QB passing the ball is a 65% completion percentage. That means at the very best, there will still be 35% of all passes that are incomplete. Those are 0 yards gained. Typically the QB is sacked at least once a game. Those are negative yard plays. Now add in the QB being pressured, tipped balls, interceptions - all of which are added risk to result in actually turning the ball over. QBs throw more interceptions than running backs fumble - typically. Passing also puts your QB at a greater risk of getting hurt than if he simply handed the ball off.

Passing used as running - Passing stats also account for plays that are really designed to accomplish what a run play does, or utilizes the running back. I'm talking about quick screens and check downs. Sure, they came via a pass, but to me those are really more equated to accomplish the same thing as a running play.

As Xwalker explained, running the ball efficiently - no 0 or negative yard plays - forces a defense to try and stop it. Because if you are gaining 4 yards every play, you will score at will. When the defense commits to stopping the run, it opens up the passing game and makes it less risky to attempt. And passing the ball does result in larger gains per play, provided its a completion. That's why have a good QB is important. To complete a high percentage of passes, not throw interceptions.

Rushing the ball well also allows an offense to PUSH the action. Offensive lineman much prefer to run block than pass block because they can be aggressive, they can hit and punish. This wears down a defense. It tires them out. Making their pass rush much less effective.

So it's not about the number of yards, either passing or rushing. Its about limiting 0 or negative plays. Rushing the ball well is more efficient than passing the ball to accomplish that.

Pro Football Reference has a nice section of play index tools.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/

I've not used the drive index personally, just the game play finder to do comparisons overall between last year and this year. I do know 52% of Murray's carries went for 3 or less in 2013. That number is currently sitting at 47% I believe for 2014.

 

[30yrheel]

Tied for second in the nfl with the chargers, the colts are 1st in TOP.
Its usually a good to possess the ball.