Passing Better and Defending The Pass (Fallacy Revisited)

[Brooksey]

Wow!

I was expecting something well thought out brimming with data to support your position.

But this is mind-blowing.


Really.

That's what it deserved Mike, sorry man.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

That's what it deserved Mike, sorry man.

Yes, it was a sorry reply to my post.

Glad we agree... That's what friends do.

 

[Brooksey]

Yes, it was a sorry reply to my post.

Glad we agree... That's what friends do.

You're really are a funny guy!

 

[MichaelWinicki]

You're really are a funny guy!

I'm here all week...


Try the veal.

 

[AdamJT13]

This is why it's best to put the calculator down and watch the games.

The Cowboys passed and defended the pass better in that game? Puhleaze.

We absolutely did. It's not about how often you pass or how many yards you total, it's about how efficient you are when you pass. We were clearly more efficient when we passed -- by any measure. Anyone who watched the game should have realized that the Vikings were piling up the pass attempts without really going anywhere until the very end of the game, and that Dak's 56-yard bomb to Dez, setting up our first touchdown, was a far bigger pass play than anything the Vikings ever had.

It's not my fault you don't realize what's going on when you watch a football game.

 

[AdamJT13]

There are numerous posts where you have said it doesn't matter how well we run the ball. Now you appear to be moving the bar. Has your stance changed, or are you sticking with your prior stance that it is irrelevant how well we run the ball?

The bar has never moved an inch. Being more efficient running the ball than your opponent has almost no effect on whether you win or lose in the NFL.

 

[CCBoy]

The bar has never moved an inch. Being more efficient running the ball than your opponent has almost no effect on whether you win or lose in the NFL.

When play is dominated by a special team and defense, as to major turning points...an unproductive offense is still suspect. That's with either a dominant running game or passing game that fails to stand up, clearly. Two of three other areas can garner the all important win, as well.

 

[Verdict]

We absolutely did. It's not about how often you pass or how many yards you total, it's about how efficient you are when you pass. We were clearly more efficient when we passed -- by any measure. Anyone who watched the game should have realized that the Vikings were piling up the pass attempts without really going anywhere until the very end of the game, and that Dak's 56-yard bomb to Dez, setting up our first touchdown, was a far bigger pass play than anything the Vikings ever had.

It's not my fault you don't realize what's going on when you watch a football game.

I'm still waiting on you to clarify if you still stand behind your statement that it doesn't matter how well you run the ball as long as you continue to run it. Since you say running doesn't matter AT ALL how well you run it we could lose 20 yards per rush and still be in good shape as long as we continue to run it according to you. Right?

You are quiet as a church mouse about that. I'll bet you wish you had a do over on that!

Come on Adam, let's hear your explanation about that one. I know I can't wait to hear if you still believe that fallacy ...... and if you incredibly still believe it, explain to us, the uninformed huddled masses, why that is the case!

 

[Verdict]

The bar has never moved an inch. Being more efficient running the ball than your opponent has almost no effect on whether you win or lose in the NFL.

Almost no effect? Before you said it was irrelevant. Are you now saying running the ball matters to some degree?

 

[Verdict]

We absolutely did. It's not about how often you pass or how many yards you total, it's about how efficient you are when you pass. We were clearly more efficient when we passed -- by any measure. Anyone who watched the game should have realized that the Vikings were piling up the pass attempts without really going anywhere until the very end of the game, and that Dak's 56-yard bomb to Dez, setting up our first touchdown, was a far bigger pass play than anything the Vikings ever had.

It's not my fault you don't realize what's going on when you watch a football game.

Do you even watch the games?

 

[Verdict]

We absolutely did. It's not about how often you pass or how many yards you total, it's about how efficient you are when you pass. We were clearly more efficient when we passed -- by any measure. Anyone who watched the game should have realized that the Vikings were piling up the pass attempts without really going anywhere until the very end of the game, and that Dak's 56-yard bomb to Dez, setting up our first touchdown, was a far bigger pass play than anything the Vikings ever had.

It's not my fault you don't realize what's going on when you watch a football game.

So what you are saying is that if we had one pass for 20 yards but that is all we would be passing more efficiently than the opposing team if they passed it 15 times for 19 yards per pass attempt?

 

[AdamJT13]

I'm still waiting on you to clarify if you still stand behind your statement that it doesn't matter how well you run the ball as long as you continue to run it. Since you say running doesn't matter AT ALL how well you run it we could lose 20 yards per rush and still be in good shape as long as we continue to run it according to you. Right?

You are quiet as a church mouse about that. I'll bet you wish you had a do over on that!

Come on Adam, let's hear your explanation about that one. I know I can't wait to hear if you still believe that fallacy ...... and if you incredibly still believe it, explain to us, the uninformed huddled masses, why that is the case!

Like I've said before, your "lose 20 yards per rush" is an absurdity that has never happened and will never happen. If you want to play pretend, feel free to believe whatever you like. The facts won't change, even if you are incapable of recognizing them.

 

[AdamJT13]

Almost no effect? Before you said it was irrelevant. Are you now saying running the ball matters to some degree?

I've always said that any relevance is very small. Whether you run better than your opponent (as measured by overall YPC) has almost no effect on whether you win or lose. Whether you pass better than your opponent (as measured in numerous ways, including ANYPA, YPA and passer rating) is very relevant and correlates highly with whether you win or lose. Any other interpretation is your mistake.

 

[AdamJT13]

So what you are saying is that if we had one pass for 20 yards but that is all we would be passing more efficiently than the opposing team if they passed it 15 times for 19 yards per pass attempt?

Again with the absurdity. You think an NFL team would play an entire game with one pass attempt? Or that the teams would combine for 16 attempts, and that both would average at least 19 yards per attempt?

 

[Verdict]

Again with the absurdity. You think an NFL team would play an entire game with one pass attempt? Or that the teams would combine for 16 attempts, and that both would average at least 19 yards per attempt?

Hey you are the one making absurd generalities and then back track when you realize your stats are not the one size fits all stats you assert they are.

 

[Verdict]

I've always said that any relevance is very small. Whether you run better than your opponent (as measured by overall YPC) has almost no effect on whether you win or lose. Whether you pass better than your opponent (as measured in numerous ways, including ANYPA, YPA and passer rating) is very relevant and correlates highly with whether you win or lose. Any other interpretation is your mistake.

You have said running isn't a factor at all. Is it a little bit relevant or not relevant at all. Make up your mind.

 

[Verdict]

Like I've said before, your "lose 20 yards per rush" is an absurdity that has never happened and will never happen. If you want to play pretend, feel free to believe whatever you like. The facts won't change, even if you are incapable of recognizing them.

You still haven't responded to my post above. Read it and get back to me.

 

[AdamJT13]

Hey you are the one making absurd generalities and then back track when you realize your stats are not the one size fits all stats you assert they are.

I've never made any absurd generalities. All I've done is state the facts.

You have said running isn't a factor at all. Is it a little bit relevant or not relevant at all. Make up your mind.

I've never said "running isn't a factor at all." Not once.

I have stated many, many times that overall rushing efficiency has little effect on either passing efficiency or winning in the NFL. I've never said it has "no effect at all." I've even cited the facts that show how small the effect is. I've also cited the facts that show how important overall passing efficiency is.

For example, see this post --

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/the-defense-will-be-better-with-zeke.348713/page-25#post-6677780

What I have stated repeatedly is that the success of the running game, generally speaking, has very little effect on whether you win or lose. Whatever effects the running game has on the passing game can be had no matter how well or how poorly you run the ball. All of that is borne out by the facts.

Last year in the NFL, the team that passed the ball better won 78.9 percent of the time, and it made almost no difference whether they ran the ball better than their opponent (79.9 percent wins) or ran the ball worse than their opponent (77.9 percent wins).

Teams that did NOT pass better than their opponent won 21.1 percent of the time, and it made almost no difference whether they ran the ball better than their opponent (22.1 percent wins) or ran the ball worse than their opponent (20.1 percent wins).

Overall, teams than ran better than their opponent won 52.3 percent of the time. Teams that ran worse than their opponent won 47.7 percent of the time.

Obviously, running better than your opponent has very little effect on whether you win or lose. To say otherwise is ludicrous.

And all of these numbers have been consistent throughout the league, every season and for every team, for the past several decades.

This year, going into this week, teams that have passed better have won 78.0 percent of the time. Teams that have passed worse have won 22.0 percent of the time. Teams that have run better have won 50.8 percent of the time. Teams that have passed worse have won 49.2 percent of the time.

Once again, the facts show the same thing as last year, and the year before, and the year before, and the year before ... as they have for decades. Passing better than your opponent has a very high correlation to winning, while rushing better than your opponent has almost no effect on winning or losing.