Running game compliments passing game

[Aussie Cowboy]

Excuse my ignorance but generally speaking don't you need to establish a strong running game to help the execution of the passing game? Just looking at numbers this week (and most of the year) opposing defenses know we are throwing the ball, surely this won't get us deep into the playoffs (assuming we win our weak division).

Why aren't we running the ball? Injuries to key personnel etc?

 

[btcutter]

Excuse my ignorance but generally speaking don't you need to establish a strong running game to help the execution of the passing game? Just looking at numbers this week (and most of the year) opposing defenses know we are throwing the ball, surely this won't get us deep into the playoffs (assuming we win our weak division).

Why aren't we running the ball? Injuries to key personnel etc?

I think it still comes back to our OL or lack there of. Other team seems to plug any RB and OL still opening holes.

 

[Rockport]

Garrett's an extremely intelligent coach. He knows that you have to have a balanced attack to be consistently effective offensively. If he thinks that they must pass all the time then he has no confidence in his OL.

 

[Doomsay]

Why aren't we running the ball? Injuries to key personnel etc?

Yes, the HC.

 

[BigStar]

Garrett's an extremely intelligent coach. He knows that you have to have a balanced attack to be consistently effective offensively. If he thinks that they must pass all the time then he has no confidence in his OL.

JG supporter?

 

[Idgit]

The play action was working ok today, even without the threat of an effective running game. Because teams defend tendencies and formations. They're not going to just be slower reacting to a draw from a bad running team just because the team doesn't typically run them well.

And teams that run the ball effectively aren't statistically more likely to win games than teams that don't. What matters is passing effectiveness. And, saying that, yes, of course there are game situations where you *do* have to run the ball in order to keep your team in position to keep passing it effectively. It's just that running it well in those situations isn't all that important as long as you use the running game situationally where you need to. This is in the red zone, to chew up the clock, to counter a defensive adjustment, or to put yourself in a more manageable position to convert and keep the chains moving.

 

[Rockport]

JG supporter?

If Garrett is responsible for the 51 to 9 pass/run ratio, then no.

 

[xwalker]

And teams that run the ball effectively aren't statistically more likely to win games than teams that don't. What matters is passing effectiveness. And, saying that, yes, of course there are game situations where you *do* have to run the ball in order to keep your team in position to keep passing it effectively. It's just that running it well in those situations isn't all that important as long as you use the running game situationally where you need to.

(This is not directed at you, but at the general concept of passing effectiveness and correlation to winning.)

In other words, football fans with spreadsheets that think they are statistical analysts can't show statistically how the running game is important; therefore, they've convinced people that "passing effectiveness" is what matters.

In reality, running and passing are interdependent and single variable statistics are of minimal value in the analysis of the value of the running and passing game.

Example: Teams that are way up on the score board will run the ball often in the 4th quarter. The type of simplistic "correlation" that these amateur statistical analysts use could lead them to believe that a high number of run attempts in the 4th quarter leads to blow-out wins.

 

[Idgit]

(This is not directed at you, but at the general concept of passing effectiveness and correlation to winning.)

In other words, football fans with spreadsheets that think they are statistical analysts can't show statistically how the running game is important; therefore, they've convinced people that "passing effectiveness" is what matters.

In reality, running and passing are interdependent and single variable statistics are of minimal value in the analysis of the value of the running and passing game.

Example: Teams that are way up on the score board will run the ball often in the 4th quarter. The type of simplistic "correlation" that these amateur statistical analysts use could lead them to believe that a high number of run attempts in the 4th quarter leads to blow-out wins.

I'd definitely agree with this. Obviously, the two are correlated. You're not going to be able to pass the ball effectively if you also aren't running it in obvious running situations. I didn't see a ton of running situations in that second half yesterday. Other than the obvious first-and-tens where we could have chosen to run. We had two drives stalled early by OPI and the hands to the face penalty. We had the one drive skipped by the defensive score, and then a couple of two-minute series at the end of the fourth quarter.

We did have the opening drive of the second half when we could have run it, but we drove right down and scored passing the ball on that series. I have a hard time second-guessing that. Other than that, there were a couple of 2nd or 3rd and shorts where we could have run it instead of passing it. That 2nd and 1 to Beasley's ankles comes to mind. But not a ton of plays where I was just shaking my head at the decision to pass the ball.

 

[Wood]

Excuse my ignorance but generally speaking don't you need to establish a strong running game to help the execution of the passing game? Just looking at numbers this week (and most of the year) opposing defenses know we are throwing the ball, surely this won't get us deep into the playoffs (assuming we win our weak division).

Why aren't we running the ball? Injuries to key personnel etc?

you have to trust what they are seeing during week of practices. Losing Waters was big blow. Murray is not type of back to create something out of nothing. He needs clear lanes to run thru. Without Waters I don't see alot of running lanes for Murray and Dallas is forced back into short to intermediate passing attack. If your defense is good you can get away with it. Unfortunately Dallas defense is unable to get off the field which puts even more pressure on passing game that is missing a running game.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I was so fed up of watching our running backs get tackled before they even hit he line of scrimmage I was happy they went passing all the way through.

A big problem i've had with this team is they don't adapt or do it fast enough. The run game out of the gate was struggling. Demarco had a 20 yard run but aside from that the run game kept stalling our drives. What held the offense back yesterday was Romo's throws and dropped footballs. Not lack of running game.

 

[AdamJT13]

Excuse my ignorance but generally speaking don't you need to establish a strong running game to help the execution of the passing game?

No, you do not. There is almost no correlation between a strong running game and a strong passing game.

That DOES NOT mean you don't need to run the ball at all, it just means that it generally does not matter how well you run it.

 

[Doomsday101]

Excuse my ignorance but generally speaking don't you need to establish a strong running game to help the execution of the passing game? Just looking at numbers this week (and most of the year) opposing defenses know we are throwing the ball, surely this won't get us deep into the playoffs (assuming we win our weak division).

Why aren't we running the ball? Injuries to key personnel etc?

I think in some games it is easier to run vs some teams and vs others that is the strenght of that team. Det and Minn are 2 teams who have some very good fronts that it is hard making a living running the ball but both also have weakness which is in their secondaries. if you know this then why attack their strenght instead of their weakness?