Is the passing game holding the run game back? Interesting Stats

[superonyx]

So I keep hearing how we can't run the ball this year because we can't pass and open up the run. It makes perfect sense right?

So I decided to see who the top 5 running teams are this year and then check where each ranks in passing.

Very interesting.

Seattle 1 rushing . 26th passing
Vikings 2 rushing. 32 passing
Carolina 4 rushing. 29 passing
San Fran 5 rushing. 31 passing
Buffalo 6 rushing. 27 passing

So why does our lack of passing keep being an excuse for the poor running game yet the teams above are still running effectively with a terrible passing game.

Found this interesting.

 

[DanManJ]

Because their opponents are making an effort to stop their passing game. Leaving room for the running game. The teams that play us have no fear of our passing game so therefore do not assign any help to stop it. A competent QB would exploit this. Which we do not have.

 

[gmoney112]

Because everyone of those teams outside of Buffalo have QB's willing to chuck up a long ball, or even an intermediate ball once in a while.

 

[Hoofbite]

Not sure this is really shocking. There are only so many plays you can run in a game and every run results in 1 less possible pass per game and vice versa.

Looks like you're using total yards which doesn't really say as much about a teams "ability" to pass this early in the season as it does about whether or not teams have been forced to - or have chosen to -, pass. Atlanta is 5th in passing yards and they're 5-0, but Houston is 3rd in passing yards and they're 1-4. Atlanta has the yardage because they have a capable QB who makes passing highly rewarding while Houston has the yardage because they're bottom 5 in the NFL in terms of yards/carry, can't move the ball any other way, and trail every week.

Of the teams you've picked, they rank 24th or lower in attempted passes and 3 of the bottom 4 teams are in that list. 2 of the teams have 1 less game worth of passing to go off of.

Just on average alone, passing pays off more than rushing. A 60% completion percentage (league average of 64.2%) with 7 yards/attempt (league average 7.3 yards/attempt) is barely worse than the league average in yards/carry at 4.1 YPC. You can be subpar in both completion % and Y/A, and still come out with a better per play return than the average YPC. Not surprising that 4 of those 5 teams average more YPC than league average, and those 4 teams make up half of the top 8.

I think the bottom line is, teams will do whatever best suits their ability to be successful. If a team can run better than they can pass, they'll probably run more. Running more means you pass less, and passing more means you run less. Neither is an indication of a team's ability to pass. Russell Wilson is undoubtedly a better QB than Brian Hoyer and Ryan Mallet, and Tyrod Taylor is too. Newton probably is too but his top WR is Tedd Ginn, which basically says that he has neither a legit #1 or a legit #2. Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL and the Packers aren't anywhere near the Top 10 in passing per game. Ability to pass isn't strictly tied to numbers. Situation and circumstance are likely more important. If you're up 10 or more going into the 4th quarter every week, you don't really need to pass. If you're down 10, you don't have any other option.

 

[Nightman]

Because everyone of those teams outside of Buffalo have QB's willing to chuck up a long ball, or even an intermediate ball once in a while.

They also all have running QBs except MINN. Bad OLs actually force QBs to scramble instead of throwing from the pocket. Those yards help the rushing totals.

Our QBs DO NOT run well.

 

[rpntex]

So I keep hearing how we can't run the ball this year because we can't pass and open up the run. It makes perfect sense right?

So I decided to see who the top 5 running teams are this year and then check where each ranks in passing.

Very interesting.

Seattle 1 rushing . 26th passing
Vikings 2 rushing. 32 passing
Carolina 4 rushing. 29 passing
San Fran 5 rushing. 31 passing
Buffalo 6 rushing. 27 passing

So why does our lack of passing keep being an excuse for the poor running game yet the teams above are still running effectively with a terrible passing game.

Found this interesting.

If you have accidents, take a good look at the all-22 footage for the New England game. The vast majority of our offensive snaps, you will see new England lined up with a free safety about 25 yards back, and the other 10 players all within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. They obviously had no respect for two things…

1) that our wide receivers could, or would, game separation, whether in be downfield or outside...
2) that our quarterback would throw the ball more than 5–10 yards downfield.

They new Dallas' passing game was limited - practically nonexistent – both vertically and horizontally. Beyond that 5 to 10 yard area, Dallas didn't have a passing game, allowing new England to focus solely on the running game.

So yes… A huge part of Dallas' ineffectiveness running the ball can be attributed to the passing game – or lack thereof.

 

[windward]

Seattle and Buffalo have been effective passing the ball, ranking in the the top ten in passer rating. The Fikings have Peterson. The Niners and Panthers have mobile threats at QB.

 

[superonyx]

Seattle and Buffalo have been effective passing the ball, ranking in the the top ten in passer rating. The Fikings have Peterson. The Niners and Panthers have mobile threats at QB.

Doesn't the Weeds have a 92 passer rating as well?
Based on the extremely low yards per game passing of these teams I would imagine any defensive coordinator would favor trying to stop the running attack over the deep passing game when playing these teams as well.

Point being that seeing these numbers makes me wonder if my assumptions before looking into it were not very accurate. I see a handful of one dimensional teams who are still managing to be effective with the other dimension. We have been failing with both running and passing.

 

[PoundTheRock]

Crappy running backs and lackluster blocking is holding the running game back.

 

[JohnsKey19]

Teams had to pick their poison last season and you had an elite QB at the line of scrimmage making sure the team had the right playcall. Not sure about those other teams but Dallas' balance and ability to do either effectively made them difficult to defend.


Take away the elite skill level of the 3 players at QB, RB and WR and the ability to make checks at the line of scrimmage, you're left with mediocrity.

 

[maxdallasfan]

All of the above teams have mobile QB's, who also include some trickery in their offensive plays.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

They also all have running QBs except MINN. Bad OLs actually force QBs to scramble instead of throwing from the pocket. Those yards help the rushing totals.

Our QBs DO NOT run well.

ummm, teddy can run

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Certainly. And so is the playcalling.







YR

 

[Alexander]

They also all have running QBs except MINN. Bad OLs actually force QBs to scramble instead of throwing from the pocket. Those yards help the rushing totals.

Our QBs DO NOT run well.

Perhaps, but Bridgewater is not really a "running QB" like the others.

 

[jrumann59]

So I keep hearing how we can't run the ball this year because we can't pass and open up the run. It makes perfect sense right?

So I decided to see who the top 5 running teams are this year and then check where each ranks in passing.

Very interesting.

Seattle 1 rushing . 26th passing
Vikings 2 rushing. 32 passing
Carolina 4 rushing. 29 passing
San Fran 5 rushing. 31 passing
Buffalo 6 rushing. 27 passing

So why does our lack of passing keep being an excuse for the poor running game yet the teams above are still running effectively with a terrible passing game.

Found this interesting.

I have not looked at the numbers, but 4 of those teams have running QBs also which can inflate rushing totals. And sorry to say it but teh Vikings right now have a more reliable passing game than Dallas. So what happened to #3

 

[gimmesix]

Doesn't the Weeds have a 92 passer rating as well?
Based on the extremely low yards per game passing of these teams I would imagine any defensive coordinator would favor trying to stop the running attack over the deep passing game when playing these teams as well.

Point being that seeing these numbers makes me wonder if my assumptions before looking into it were not very accurate. I see a handful of one dimensional teams who are still managing to be effective with the other dimension. We have been failing with both running and passing.

While they might favor stopping the run over the pass, they still have to respect the pass with quarterbacks who can burn them downfield. Teams are going to protect against those throws, which gives the running game a little more room to breath.

Against Dallas, defenses are challenging the Cowboys to beat them deep by playing almost every defender near the line of scrimmage and then being physical with the receivers to hold them up. As the announcers pointed out Sunday, this means Dallas is facing nine to 11 men "in the box," especially on first down.

Having to respect what a QB can do keeps teams from doing that, but defenses just don't believe Weeden is going to make them pay for it, and they've been right outside of a couple of plays that didn't end up being that costly. If you go back and look at the Atlanta and New Orleans games, we had early success running the ball and each team tightened up the box and dared us to pass, knowing they could handle the short passing game we were using while defending the run.

 

[superonyx]

While they might favor stopping the run over the pass, they still have to respect the pass with quarterbacks who can burn them downfield. Teams are going to protect against those throws, which gives the running game a little more room to breath.

Against Dallas, defenses are challenging the Cowboys to beat them deep by playing almost every defender near the line of scrimmage and then being physical with the receivers to hold them up. As the announcers pointed out Sunday, this means Dallas is facing nine to 11 men "in the box," especially on first down.

Having to respect what a QB can do keeps teams from doing that, but defenses just don't believe Weeden is going to make them pay for it, and they've been right outside of a couple of plays that didn't end up being that costly. If you go back and look at the Atlanta and New Orleans games, we had early success running the ball and each team tightened up the box and dared us to pass, knowing they could handle the short passing game we were using while defending the run.

I agree with this. However the problem is that our running game was actually worse when we had Romo than with Weeden.

Vs Giants 80 yards rushing 3.5ypc
Vs Eagles 109 yards rushing 3.3ypc
Vs Saint 115 yards rushing 4.1 YPC
Vs Falcons 127 yards rushing 6.0ypc
Vs patriots 100 yards rushing 4.2 YPC

 

[gimmesix]

I agree with this. However the problem is that our running game was actually worse when we had Romo than with Weeden.

Vs Giants 80 yards rushing 3.5ypc
Vs Eagles 109 yards rushing 3.3ypc
Vs Saint 115 yards rushing 4.1 YPC
Vs Falcons 127 yards rushing 6.0ypc
Vs patriots 100 yards rushing 4.2 YPC

We had a few big runs early against the Saints and Falcons that inflated the rushing numbers before they adjusted and limited us. I'm a little surprised we averaged 4.2 against the Pats. It was tough sledding against the Eagles, but turnovers altered our game plan against the Giants.

I'm not a fan of the idea of constantly running into eight- and nine-man fronts on first down, just as I wasn't when we did it last year, but Dallas seems content/determined to do it. With Romo, we could overcome when those runs would go for just a yard or two or be stopped in the backfield. With Weeden, it's just the start of a three-and-out.

 

[conner01]

Because everyone of those teams outside of Buffalo have QB's willing to chuck up a long ball, or even an intermediate ball once in a while.

All of those teams also have qb's who run the ball some and that also helps
They all have qb's that can throw down field too

 

[Hoofbite]

Doesn't the Weeds have a 92 passer rating as well?
Based on the extremely low yards per game passing of these teams I would imagine any defensive coordinator would favor trying to stop the running attack over the deep passing game when playing these teams as well.

Point being that seeing these numbers makes me wonder if my assumptions before looking into it were not very accurate. I see a handful of one dimensional teams who are still managing to be effective with the other dimension. We have been failing with both running and passing.

Which is why it's a good idea to remember that not all passer ratings are created equal.