Significance of the running game in today's NFL

[Idgit]

They run a lot because if they went to the pass as a primary weapon they would lose the game it is that run and the fear of that run that opens up things for them. Say what you will I watch and understand football very well. Seattle does not only run a lot 525 rushes they run much more than they pass the ball 454 attempts. Their defense is great but not only vs pass they are top 3 defense vs run.

The run a lot because you cannot pass effectively against them. They don't have to take risks in the passing game to win ball games. They can run and then take the effective passing situations that present themselves. It's up to the other guys to execute the passing game against that secondary.

That's a tremendous advantage, and it's why you can take an opportunistic QB and roll him out and stock your WR corps with mediocre players and still be successful on offense. Just don't turn it over or take big risks, and you're still going to win the passing game differential equation when your defense comes up big.

And don't fool yourself. They've got a good DL rotation, but that secondary and MLB are the engine that makes that defense so good.

 

[Doomsday101]

Like I said, they almost always win when they pass the ball better than their opponent. And if they don't pass it better, they usually lose.

and they do not pass well unless they can run it. Teams do not go into Seattle thinking stop the pass they damn well know Lynch is the key, keep Seattle in long situation and force Wilson to throw from the pocket when that happens Seahawks lose

 

[Doomsday101]

The run a lot because you cannot pass effectively against them. They don't have to take risks in the passing game to win ball games. They can run and then take the effective passing situations that present themselves. It's up to the other guys to execute the passing game against that secondary.

That's a tremendous advantage, and it's why you can take an opportunistic QB and roll him out and stock your WR corps with mediocre players and still be successful on offense. Just don't turn it over or take big risks, and you're still going to win the passing game differential equation when your defense comes up big.

And don't fool yourself. They've got a good DL rotation, but that secondary and MLB are the engine that makes that defense so good.

What ever I watch enough of their games to know they are a running team, without the run they can't do much. Defense they are great but they are great vs run and the pass you act as if they only stop the pass they are excellent run stopping team. You guys can sit here and tell me how great Seahawks are at passing but I watch the games, I see how much they feed the ball to Lynch I see what happens when Wilson is forced to throw from the pocket. He is not that good. I hear NFL coach after coach talk of the importance of the run game I come here and you guys act as if well the run does not matter. BS

 

[perrykemp]

Not to mention Lacy broke some big gains on 3rd down that killed our defense

Yet, if you read Sturm's most recent analysis of the game you will note that Packer's offense didn't take off until the 2nd half when they took Lacy out and went 4WR/1TE or 5WR with Cobb playing out of the RB position.

My take on it is this -- for whatever reason the Packer's running game with Lacy always <looks> impressive, however, the Packers for reasons only known to Mike McCarthy don't trust the running game, rarely rely on it, and in general quit running the ball when games are tight.

It's actually an argument for this whole Murray "dirty run" theory -- Lacy seems to have a number of big, explosive, runs but isn't the grinder you'd expect him to be. Murray is more of a grinder, is able to move the sticks, and in general is more consistent.

Sorry for stream of conscienceless on this topic. It struck me when reviewing the game -- the more the Packers ran (and Lacy looked really good doing it) they more they fell behind -- until they scrapped the run and flooded the field with WRs.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Baltimore Dallas Denver all out rushed their opponents last weekend. They all lost. Baltimore had 140 rushing yards to 14 for New England. Didnt matter. Teams that average 2 more yards rushing per play than their opponent, win 53% of the time. Compared that to teams that average 2 more yards passing per play than their opponent , win 92% of the time.

To me this just shows why teams are moving away from RBs and on to WRs, TEs and QBs. The reason dallas went 13-5 is because tony romo played at an MVP level. If murray prices himself out of town, I think Jerry will let him go. It's just not a position to overpay for anymore.

For the Dallas Cowboys I think the running game is more important than most teams because they have to try to keep the defense off the field. But in that GB game, passing the ball is what put points on the board.

Generally, being able to pass and defend the pass is what wins. Don't get me wrong, a running game helps. But if dallas is going to win in the playoffs, they should emphasize defending the pass this offseason, even if demarco murray is a casualty of that.

Here is a website that really illustrates how much more important passing is in the NFL.

http://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-nfl-teams-make-and-win-in-the-playoffs/

I suggest you read these two articles. The first one more than the second. I think it illustrates they went away from the run when they should have featured it at critical points in the game.

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...hould-dallas-have-run-more-in-green-bay.html/

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...ort-green-bay-had-the-necessary-answers.html/

 

[Idgit]

What ever I watch enough of their games to know they are a running team, without the run they can't do much. Defense they are great but they are great vs run and the pass you act as if they only stop the pass they are excellent run stopping team. You guys can sit here and tell me how great Seahawks are at passing but I watch the games, I see how much they feed the ball to Lynch I see what happens when Wilson is forced to throw from the pocket. He is not that good. I hear NFL coach after coach talk of the importance of the run game I come here and you guys act as if well the run does not matter. BS

You're not the only one who can watch the games, Dooms. It's ok for us to have different opinions re: what we're seeing and for neither of us to be football dummies.

I don't have huge regard for Wilson, either. I think he's a guy that does what's asked of him and is very smart. And not all that much is asked of him. He's very fortunate to be playing with that defense.

And *nobody* is saying that the run game does not matter. It bothers me that this discussion keeps going back to that straw man, because it would be an absurd argument. The argument is that running the ball effectively does not make you more likely to win football games. And that's true. It's not the same thing to say that running game doesn't matter. If you didn't run, you'd put pressure on the passing game that would keep you from passing effectively. And passing effectively is what wins the games.

 

[AdamJT13]

What ever I watch enough of their games to know they are a running team

Nobody said they're not a running team. But whether they win or lose usually depends on how well they pass and stop the pass.

without the run they can't do much.

They went 3-0 in the only three games when they averaged less than 4.0 yards per carry.

Defense they are great but they are great vs run and the pass you act as if they only stop the pass they are excellent run stopping team.

Nobody said they weren't.

You guys can sit here and tell me how great Seahawks are at passing but I watch the games, I see how much they feed the ball to Lynch I see what happens when Wilson is forced to throw from the pocket. He is not that good. I hear NFL coach after coach talk of the importance of the run game I come here and you guys act as if well the run does not matter.

If running and stopping the run was much of a factor in winning in the NFL, then the Jets wouldn't have been one of the worst teams this season. They were a running team who committed to the run and were good at running and good at stuffing the run. But they were a terrible passing team, had a terrible pass defense and went 4-12.

It doesn't matter what team it is, or how much they run the ball or pass the ball -- the key to winning in the NFL is passing and stopping the pass. If you do that better than your opponent, you will win the vast majority of your games, regardless of how well you run or stop the run. If you don't, you will lose the vast majority of your games.

 

[Stryker44]

You guys are going make me defend both situations up aren't you? lol I think a power running game is very big weapon to have but again if Defense is willing to expose themselves vs the pass to stop the run they will do so and it is there that a quality offense will strike with the pass. Bring 8 and 9 into the box but man you leave the down the field open

The best power run games can overcome 8 or 9 men in the box.

 

[Doomsday101]

The best power run games can overcome 8 or 9 men in the box.

Not always, there are some very physical defense out there who if they come in looking to stop the run can do so, again it may put them at risk on the back end but if they gear up to stop it they can. Even the 90's Cowboys had games where we did not have a big rushing day but were able to exploit the team for over committing to vs the run

 

[xwalker]

This much is true. But it remains the case that throwing the ball effectively is the easiest way to put points on the board, which is why doing that well is such a good indicator of who's going to win.

Hey, if we could have a theoretical rushing game so effective we didn't need to pass--making it impossible to pass ineffectively--and could stop the other guys from passing ourselves, I'd be all for it. Not sure such an advantage exists anywhere in the league, though. It makes more sense to put a team together than can run to get you in whatever game situations you want to be in, one that's effective at goal line and short yardage, too, and to be able to pass effectively from there. Which is pretty much exactly what we did this season.

If you were to plot rushing effectiveness per game, passer rating per game, opponent passer rating per game, and wins over the 17 weeks of the season, you're going to see the correlation is between the wins and passing effectiveness, regardless of the rushing effectiveness. All while recognizing that rushing touchdowns and receiving touchdowns both count for six points in both the wins and the losses.

The statistics for properly evaluating the running games effect on winning are not available. For instance there are no stats for 7 vs 8 men in the box. All pass plays completed against 7 men in the box would be a positive stat for the rush or threat of the rush. Defenses adjust to limit the actual yardage rushing but the offense's passing game will benefit.

Non professional wanna-be statistical analysts have misconstrued this issue. Please don't buy in.

 

[xwalker]

The best power run games can overcome 8 or 9 men in the box.

They wouldn't need to overcome 9 men in the box because a High School QB could shred 2 men in coverage passing.

 

[Idgit]

The statistics for properly evaluating the running games effect on winning are not available. For instance there are no stats for 7 vs 8 men in the box. All pass plays completed against 7 men in the box would be a positive stat for the rush or threat of the rush. Defenses adjust to limit the actual yardage rushing but the offense's passing game will benefit.

Non professional wanna-be statistical analysts have misconstrued this issue. Please don't buy in.

I'd love to see more detailed running statistics that could break out its affect on winning if they ever become available. I'm not married to a data set.

It doesn't follow that you'd necessarily want to adjust passing statistics v. how many defenders were in the box, though. I'm not even a casual statistical analyst, nor do I have much interest in that, but I do think I know decent analysis when I see it. I've seen plenty of data on this topic, and much of it I wouldn't put in the wanna-be category. Adam's contributions in this thread and others, for example, make perfect sense and are convincing as far as I'm concerned. They have the added advantage, too, of being backed up by everything I see when I'm watching NFL football.

 

[CF74]

Every team is diff and has its strengths and weaknesses.. We had an injured QB so throwing the ball 30+ times is not gonna fly towards the end of the year. The fumble not only hurt us but diminished a bit of trust in Murray because we started to pass more from that point on. We got robbed either way so it's a moot point...

 

[AdamJT13]

The statistics for properly evaluating the running games effect on winning are not available. For instance there are no stats for 7 vs 8 men in the box. All pass plays completed against 7 men in the box would be a positive stat for the rush or threat of the rush. Defenses adjust to limit the actual yardage rushing but the offense's passing game will benefit.

Again, you're completely missing the point. It does not matter WHY or HOW a team succeeds at passing, the point is that a team MUST be better at passing than its opponent in order to win in the vast majority of NFL games. Whether the opponent puts seven in the box or eight in the box, you need to pass the ball more effectively than your opponent does. Running the ball well doesn't force the other team to put eight in the box, nor does it mean that you'll automatically pass well. Having the "threat" of running well also doesn't force the opponent to put eight in the box, neither does it mean that you'll automatically pass well.

You claim that "there are no statistics available," but for that to be true (aside from the fact that those stats are tracked but rarely made public), you would have to admit that there is nothing that affects whether the defense puts seven or eight in the box -- that it must be a completely arbitrary decision. If, however, defenses actually put eight in the box more often against teams that run well or teams that are running well, then those teams would be passing against eight in the box more often and should, therefore, be more successful passing. So, either teams arbitrarily decide to put eight in the box, or the advantage of passing against eight in the box is not enough to significantly affect correlation. (Or, considering that less than 25 percent of all runs come against eight in the box, and a significant portion of those likely come in obvious running situations, then given the infrequency of passes against eight in the box, the small advantage gained is not enough to significantly affect correlation.) Again, it's usually the team that succeeds in obvious PASSING situations, both offensively and defensively, that usually wins the game.

 

[AdamJT13]

Some light reading for those so inclined --

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.co...the-most-effective-offenses-since-1970/23311/

 

[xwalker]

I'd love to see more detailed running statistics that could break out its affection winning if they ever become available. I'm not married to a data set.
It doesn't follow that you'd necessarily want to adjust passing statistics v. how many defenders were in the box, though. I'm not even a casual statistical analyst, nor do I have much interest in that, but I do think I know decent analysis when I see it. I've seen plenty of data on this topic, and much of it I wouldn't put in the wanna-be category. Adam's contributions in this thread and others, for example, make perfect sense and are convincing as far as I'm concerned. They have the added advantage, too, of being backed up by everything I see when I'm watching NFL football.

Passing and rushing are interdependent (one has an effect on the other). Without some method to quantify (measure) this interdependence there is no way to conclude that one is more important than the other. A given defense can play 2 different offenses and hold them both to 50 yards rushing, but if the defense used 8 men in the box against 1 offense and 7 men in the box against the other offense, then the offense passing against the defense with 1 less man in coverage has the advantage. They achieved that advantage by having a strong rushing threat. That threat can't be measured in terms of rushing yards, because both offenses had the same amount of rushing yards. One offense obviously had a better rushing threat, but Rushing Yards was not the proper statistic to show it.

The other misuse of statistics is comparing what the Jets did with what the Cowboys did. The fact that the Jets gained a lot of yards rushing but were still losers is not relevant to the Cowboys. The real question is did the Cowboys win more when they had a better rushing threat vs when they (the Cowboys) had a weaker rushing threat. Most likely the Cowboys did win more with the stronger rushing threat; however, as discussed previously, Rushing Yardage is not a good measurement on a per game basis because defenses adjust. The same basic Cowboys team that went 8-8 in 2013 was 13-4 in 2014 and I think it is obvious that they imposed a stronger rushing threat in 2014 than in 2013. Comparing the Jets stats to the Cowboys stats is like testing an anti-psychotic drug on a sane person and an insane person. The results are not relevant to each other.

 

[Idgit]

Passing and rushing are interdependent (one has an effect on the other). Without some method to quantify (measure) this interdependence there is no way to conclude that one is more important than the other. A given defense can play 2 different offenses and hold them both to 50 yards rushing, but if the defense used 8 men in the box against 1 offense and 7 men in the box against the other offense, then the offense passing against the defense with 1 less man in coverage has the advantage. They achieved that advantage by having a strong rushing threat. That threat can't be measured in terms of rushing yards, because both offenses had the same amount of rushing yards. One offense obviously had a better rushing threat, but Rushing Yards was not the proper statistic to show it.

The argument isn't that one is more important than the other. The argument is that doing one of them better than your opponent (passing) is more likely to win you games. Whereas doing the other better (rushing) is not.

I agree that passing against fewer defenders in coverage is an advantage. I'd recommend we do that wherever we can. I'm just not convinced--as you seem to be--that you get that advantageous coverage because of the 'strength' of your rushing threat. I believe it's much more likely to be a function of the other team's personnel and how they chose to defend your formations based off of tendencies and downs and distances. A 'poor' rushing team is still going to see 8 in the box at times throughout the season.

...The real question is did the Cowboys win more when they had a better rushing threat vs when they (the Cowboys) had a weaker rushing threat. Most likely the Cowboys did win more with the stronger rushing threat; however, as discussed previously, Rushing Yardage is not a good measurement on a per game basis because defenses adjust. The same basic Cowboys team that went 8-8 in 2013 was 13-4 in 2014 and I think it is obvious that they imposed a stronger rushing threat in 2014 than in 2013. Comparing the Jets stats to the Cowboys stats is like testing an anti-psychotic drug on a sane person and an insane person. The results are not relevant to each other.

I'm not sure that follows. You'd have to tell me more about what you consider to be the times where we had a real rushing threat and the times where we did not. What I do know is that the times this year where we weren't effective passing the ball (SF, AZ, WAS, PHI) we tended to lose. And we ran pretty effectively in some of those games. GB was an obvious exception to this rule, where Romo put up a 140 rating and lost. That was a function of turnovers and a significant officiating mistake...and an opposing QB who also put up some really effective passing statistics.

If you want to look at the real differences between wins in 2013 and 2014, I'd start with how our passing defense played those two seasons. We lost 5 games by a total of 8 points in 2013. And our defense overall improved from near league-worst to middling. That's the reason why the win totals improved. Some of that may correlate to the ToP differentials, which would be a function of our emphasis on rushing. Though, again, that's a function of rushing itself (i.e., the clock not stopping due to incompletions) and not necessarily of rushing effectiveness.

 

[xwalker]

Again, you're completely missing the point. It does not matter WHY or HOW a team succeeds at passing, the point is that a team MUST be better at passing than its opponent in order to win in the vast majority of NFL games. Whether the opponent puts seven in the box or eight in the box, you need to pass the ball more effectively than your opponent does. Running the ball well doesn't force the other team to put eight in the box, nor does it mean that you'll automatically pass well. Having the "threat" of running well also doesn't force the opponent to put eight in the box, neither does it mean that you'll automatically pass well.

Yes, if a defense altered anything that it does from game to game based on the rushing threat of the offenses, then rushing is relevant to winning. You and I don't have the stats to quantify how relevant rushing is or isn't, but if it altered anything that the defense does, then it is relevant.

You keeping making 1 true statement, but continually follow it with something that you cannot show or prove.
True:
Passing more effectively than the opponent correlates to winning. (It's not 100% correlation, but it does correlate).

False:
Passing is more important than rushing. (Any statement that you've made regarding rushing is unproven. Lack of correlation is not proof of anything).

FYI - I know for certain that some NFL teams (probably all) have more advanced stats that are not publicly available. My business partner once worked on a software project that was used by professional teams to query stats and do other advanced statistical analysis. They have access to an overwhelming amount of information.

You might consider that teams have access to that information but are still paying RBs, Nose Tackles, LBs that come off the field on passing downs, etc..

If you said NFL teams don't believe that rushing is as important as they thought it was 20 years ago, then I would agree with that concept; however, that in no way indicates that it is of minimal importance.

You claim that "there are no statistics available," but for that to be true (aside from the fact that those stats are tracked but rarely made public), you would have to admit that there is nothing that affects whether the defense puts seven or eight in the box -- that it must be a completely arbitrary decision. If, however, defenses actually put eight in the box more often against teams that run well or teams that are running well, then those teams would be passing against eight in the box more often and should, therefore, be more successful passing. So, either teams arbitrarily decide to put eight in the box, or the advantage of passing against eight in the box is not enough to significantly affect correlation. (Or, considering that less than 25 percent of all runs come against eight in the box, and a significant portion of those likely come in obvious running situations, then given the infrequency of passes against eight in the box, the small advantage gained is not enough to significantly affect correlation.) Again, it's usually the team that succeeds in obvious PASSING situations, both offensively and defensively, that usually wins the game.

The 8 vs 7 men in the box is a simplistic example. It is anything that a defense does differently because of an offense's rushing threat or lack of. That could be that the run stopping type players get more snaps against some offenses than they do against others. It also includes issues like fatigue by the defense. Just because you can't statistically measure fatigue does not mean that it doesn't exist.

Why would it need to be arbitrary? Just because it's not necessarily based on rush yardage does not make it arbitrary if that is your point.

 

[xwalker]

The argument isn't that one is more important than the other. The argument is that doing one of them better than your opponent (passing) is more likely to win you games. Whereas doing the other better (rushing) is not.

That is based on the statistic yardage. If a defense does anything to limit rushing or attempt to limit rushing at the expense of pass defense, then that makes rushing part of the variable Passing Effectively. In this situation the importance of rushing exists but is not defined by rushing yardage on a per game basis. If it is known to exist but you don't have a definitive way to put a number on it, then it is inconclusive.

According to Adam's theory, rushing yardage does not correlate to either winning or losing. A lack of correlation is not proof of anything.

If you want to say that Passing Effectively correlates to winning, I'm fine with that; however, any statement about the importance of rushing is inconclusive with the available statistics.

 

[Idgit]

That is based on the statistic yardage. If a defense does anything to limit rushing or attempt to limit rushing at the expense of pass defense, then that makes rushing part of the variable Passing Effectively. In this situation the importance of rushing exists but is not defined by rushing yardage on a per game basis. If it is known to exist but you don't have a definitive way to put a number on it, then it is inconclusive.

According to Adam's theory, rushing yardage does not correlate to either winning or losing. A lack of correlation is not proof of anything.

If you want to say that Passing Effectively correlates to winning, I'm fine with that; however, any statement about the importance of rushing is inconclusive with the available statistics.

I'm sorry walker. What you're saying here just doesn't follow logically. It doesn't matter what defense you're throwning against. If you're effective doing so, it helps your chances of winning games. If rushing effectiveness encouraged coordinators to put defenses you could pass against on the field, then rushing effectiveness would correlate with winning. But it does not.

And rushing effectiveness doesn't need to correlate with losing. It's enough that it doesn't correlate with winning. Though I'm not sure I grasp the significance of the distinction.

Finally, we're not talking about the relative importance of the running game here. We're talking about the relative importance of rushing effectively. There's a difference and it keeps getting swept under a rug for some reason.