Significance of the running game in today's NFL

[TrailBlazer]

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

Only an idiot would run at a 9 man box

 

[AdamJT13]

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.

Is anything that makes a 1-yard difference over the course of 10,000 seasons is relevant. If you want to quibble, the answer is yes. What I'm saying is that how well you run or stop the run is virtually irrelevant because over the course of the season, it's not likely to affect how much you win or lose any more than a bunch of other small factors. Passing and stopping the pass, however, is very, very likely to affect your record. One is a key factor -- the most important factor other than points -- and one is a very small factor.

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).

That's unequivocably not true.

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.

NFL teams pay for a lot of things that might make a small difference here or there, on the slight chance that they might affect the outcome of a game. But in the vast majority of games, they do not.

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.

If it's not based on anything, then it is arbitrary. If it's based on how well the opponent runs the ball, then your theory is wrong. If it's not based on how well the opponent runs the ball, then it doesn't matter how well you run the ball, which also means you're wrong. So, either it's arbitrary, or you're wrong.

 

[Deep_South]

It sounds like we're heading into Bill James territory here - an endless statistical maze of twisty little passages. It is fun to ride along, though.

 

[AdamJT13]

Teams that passed the ball better than their opponent in games this season (as measured by ANYPA) went 215-40-1, for a winning percentage of .840 -- which might be the highest I've seen in a single season. It's usually about .800.

Teams that ran the ball better than their opponent (as measured by YPC) went 136-119-1, for a winning percentage of .531. As usual, it's barely over .500.

In our games, the team with a higher ANYPA went 18-0. The team with a higher YPC went 9-9.

Only 115 of the 256 teams that had a higher ANYPA in a game (44.9 percent) also had a higher YPC, which again shows that rushing success doesn't correlate to passing success.

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

I agree with most of this. I actually think we run just a little too much. It's hard to argue with the results obviously, but I think we should pursue a split that has our leading rusher closer to about 1300-1400 yards. I thought there were some games earlier in the season we could have run away with if we hadn't stuck with "three yards and a cloud of dust". I don't want to go anywhere near our old run/pass splits obviously, I am talking about just a slight shift.

I believe mixing it up on first down a bit would fix some of that. Hopefully that's something they'll do next year. Run it MOST of the time on first down, but lots of playaction as well. It was so skewed this year and teams were geared up to take it away towards the end of the year.

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

Stuff like this makes me wonder why more teams don't just play nickel as their base defense. I wonder how that would play out over the course of a season.

 

[Stryker44]

Only an idiot would run at a 9 man box

Not if you want to crush the other team's spirit.

 

[xwalker]

Is anything that makes a 1-yard difference over the course of 10,000 seasons is relevant. If you want to quibble, the answer is yes. What I'm saying is that how well you run or stop the run is virtually irrelevant because over the course of the season, it's not likely to affect how much you win or lose any more than a bunch of other small factors. Passing and stopping the pass, however, is very, very likely to affect your record. One is a key factor -- the most important factor other than points -- and one is a very small factor.

Wrong. You want to mathematically point to statistics as proof of something, but then admit the you have no way to measure the impact a rushing threat on passing effectively. If you don't have the equation to define that relationship, then your statistics are meaningless in regards to rushing.

You say that it is a very small factor but yet you have no way to measure it.

That's unequivocably not true.

You can't prove it.

NFL teams pay for a lot of things that might make a small difference here or there, on the slight chance that they might affect the outcome of a game. But in the vast majority of games, they do not.

Unsupported statement.

If it's not based on anything, then it is arbitrary. If it's based on how well the opponent runs the ball, then your theory is wrong. If it's not based on how well the opponent runs the ball, then it doesn't matter how well you run the ball, which also means you're wrong. So, either it's arbitrary, or you're wrong.

You think it has to be based on something that you can measure statistically. It doesn't. Actually it probably can be, but it's not based on a per game basis of rushing as defined by yardage. Defenses don't wait until the offense has gashed them for large amounts of yards before they adjust to stop the run.

You want to use statistics to say that your theory is absolute; however, you want to hand wave at anything that prevents you from proving it with absolute mathematical certainty. If a rushing threat in any way helps "Passing Effectively", then mathematically you can't solve that overall equation without the exact formula that defines the the relationship of defenses adjusting to the threat of the rush at the expense of pass coverage. It does not matter how small you "think" that contribution is to "Passing Effectively", if it exists and you can't define it, then it is theoretically impossible to make an absolute conclusion about it.

 

[xwalker]

Teams that passed the ball better than their opponent in games this season (as measured by ANYPA) went 215-40-1, for a winning percentage of .840 -- which might be the highest I've seen in a single season. It's usually about .800.

Teams that ran the ball better than their opponent (as measured by YPC) went 136-119-1, for a winning percentage of .531. As usual, it's barely over .500.

In our games, the team with a higher ANYPA went 18-0. The team with a higher YPC went 9-9.

Only 115 of the 256 teams that had a higher ANYPA in a game (44.9 percent) also had a higher YPC, which again shows that rushing success doesn't correlate to passing success.

Again, you can't get the concept that YPC is not the correct measurement of a rushing threat, especially on a per game basis.

 

[xwalker]

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.

No, your missing the concept that defenses adjust to limit rushing yardage which makes any attempt to define the importance of rushing using the statistic rushing yardage worthless.

Mathematically, if there is any connection between defenses defending the run at the expense of pass coverage, then you must define that connection mathematically if you're going to make absolute conclusions based on statistics.

You might want to guess that the effect of defending the run is small on "passing effectively" but that would just be a guess.

I'll repeat the example that explains why rushing as defined by rushing yardage is not a useful statistic in this situation.

Example:
Lets say that the Seahawks play both the Cowboys and the Packers. If the Seahawks play 8 men in the box to defend against the Cowboys rushing attack but they only play 7 men in the box against the Packers, then Romo gets to pass against 1 less man in coverage than what Rodgers faces. In this example, lets say that both the Cowboys and Packers gain 50 yards rushing. As you can easily see the advantage that Romo had of passing against 1 less pass defender does exist but is not shown in the statistic Rushing Yardage. Any attempt to try and find this advantage by reviewing rushing statistics is pointless. Both teams rushed for the same amount of yards but 1 team clearly had the advantage of passing against 1 less pass defender.

Please keep in mind that 7 vs 8 men in the box is just a simplistic concept for the example. It could be anything that the defense does to adjust like having a pass rusher delay his rush to "read" the run or giving the run stopping defensive players more snaps than they would get against a weak rushing threat.

Adam has said that defenses should never defend the run at the expense of pass coverage. That expands the discussion way beyond just passing effectively and rushing effectively as measured by yardage. His statement implies that rushing itself is of minimal importance which has not been proven. If defenses took this approach games would go from averaging somewhere around 100 yards rushing and 300 yards passing to something like 200 and 200. If that happened, then there is a high probability that rushing as defined by yardage would begin to correlate to winning because now it's around 50% (200-200) of the total yards gained instead of 25% (100-300).

 

[jobberone]

Only an idiot would run at a 9 man box

Only an idiot would repeatedly run at a 8-9 man box. Running effectively will make a team put 8-9 in the box. Or running so well you are beating teams regularly in part due to it forces teams to put 8-9 in the box.

Once you know they are going to do that with some regularity then you have an advantage in the pass game.

 

[Risen Star]

It's real simple and doesn't require a calculator to figure out.

If you told any NFL executive, coach, scout or player that running the ball and defending the run doesn't matter they would laugh right in your face.

Stats have their place but they should never trump common sense. Watch the games.

 

[jobberone]

You win in today's game by scoring 25+ points a game. How much over 25 you need is determined by your opponent and your defense. To do that you need to pass the ball in today's rules' environment. In fact since the forward pass was allowed, scoring has gone up and up assisted by evolving offenses, elite QBs, the evolution of the passing game, and rules favoring the pass offense.

You need to run the ball effectively and all teams have DLs built to stop the run. It is their first priority despite the fact the pass wins games. The reason is running the ball effectively allows for higher 3rd down conversion rates and higher SC%. Running the ball effectively opens up the passing game creating favorable matchups. 3 DBs can only do so much against elite WRs. Doubling them opens up the middle and underneath yada. TE and slot receivers then eat you up.

You run when they make the pass difficult and to create favorable matchups. You generally don't win by running the ball down the field every possession. Teams can strike too quickly and it forces very high SC% which are too often unsustainable.

You run the ball to run the clock out and keep away from the other team in certain situations. It's not something you do all game long unless you have a very dominant defense which allows that sort of game plan. We ain't got that and seldom to you see it. More often you see good defenses like Seattle. There are no dominant teams today just several very good ones.

Teams with a legit running game and an elite QB are generally too much for most defenses to stop. Hence the 13-5 record.

 

[Idgit]

No, your missing the concept that defenses adjust to limit rushing yardage which makes any attempt to define the importance of rushing using the statistic rushing yardage worthless.

Mathematically, if there is any connection between defenses defending the run at the expense of pass coverage, then you must define that connection mathematically if you're going to make absolute conclusions based on statistics.

You might want to guess that the effect of defending the run is small on "passing effectively" but that would just be a guess.

I'll repeat the example that explains why rushing as defined by rushing yardage is not a useful statistic in this situation.

Example:
Lets say that the Seahawks play both the Cowboys and the Packers. If the Seahawks play 8 men in the box to defend against the Cowboys rushing attack but they only play 7 men in the box against the Packers, then Romo gets to pass against 1 less man in coverage than what Rodgers faces. In this example, lets say that both the Cowboys and Packers gain 50 yards rushing. As you can easily see the advantage that Romo had of passing against 1 less pass defender does exist but is not shown in the statistic Rushing Yardage. Any attempt to try and find this advantage by reviewing rushing statistics is pointless. Both teams rushed for the same amount of yards but 1 team clearly had the advantage of passing against 1 less pass defender.

Please keep in mind that 7 vs 8 men in the box is just a simplistic concept for the example. It could be anything that the defense does to adjust like having a pass rusher delay his rush to "read" the run or giving the run stopping defensive players more snaps than they would get against a weak rushing threat.

Adam has said that defenses should never defend the run at the expense of pass coverage. That expands the discussion way beyond just passing effectively and rushing effectively as measured by yardage. His statement implies that rushing itself is of minimal importance which has not been proven. If defenses took this approach games would go from averaging somewhere around 100 yards rushing and 300 yards passing to something like 200 and 200. If that happened, then there is a high probability that rushing as defined by yardage would begin to correlate to winning because now it's around 50% (200-200) of the total yards gained instead of 25% (100-300).

The defenses you pass against obviously affect your passing effectiveness. Nothing I'm reading in this thread suggests otherwise. This is most of the reason we're in agreement that the rushing game is, in fact, very important. That doesn't change the fact that rushing well-other than short yardage/goal line-doesn't really help you win football games.

 

[Idgit]

It's real simple and doesn't require a calculator to figure out.

If you told any NFL executive, coach, scout or player that running the ball and defending the run doesn't matter they would laugh right in your face.

Stats have their place but they should never trump common sense. Watch the games.

You're badly misunderstanding the argument here.

 

[Doomsday101]

The defenses you pass against obviously affect your passing effectiveness. Nothing I'm reading in this thread suggests otherwise. This is most of the reason we're in agreement that the rushing game is, in fact, very important. That doesn't change the fact that rushing well-other than short yardage/goal line-doesn't really help you win football games.

If it makes the offense move more effective then it does help you win football games. On one hand you say it is very important but does not win games

 

[Risen Star]

You're badly misunderstanding the argument here.

No, I just understand how asinine your argument is.

 

[Doomsday101]

You're badly misunderstanding the argument here.

I must be as well because it makes little sense. If running can benefit the passing game then it importance to a team in scoring points and winning games then the run game was a factor in the win.
Anytime a part of your offense can force the opponent to alter their defense be it pass or run then it is that very thing that is making a difference in winning and losing

 

[xwalker]

The defenses you pass against obviously affect your passing effectiveness. Nothing I'm reading in this thread suggests otherwise. This is most of the reason we're in agreement that the rushing game is, in fact, very important. That doesn't change the fact that rushing well-other than short yardage/goal line-doesn't really help you win football games.

That statement just needs to be changed to say that Rushing Yardage is not a good measurement of the importance of the running game in terms of winning games.

The vast majority of people will misunderstand "Rushing Effectively doesn't correlate to winning as measured by Rushing Yardage" to mean that the running game is not important to winning. You might be making that distinction, but most people will see Adam's statements and think that he is saying the the running game is of minimal importance which we know is not true or is definitely not proven.

 

[xwalker]

You're badly misunderstanding the argument here.

As I said in my previous post, very very few people will make the distinction of that you're talking about the statistic Rushing Yardage and not the importance of the running game itself.

It is fine to repeat that "Passing More Effectively than Your Opponent Correlates to Winning", but any references to Rushing should be omitted from those statements. If Rushing is going to be mentioned, it should just be with the clarification that Rushing Yardage is not a good measurement of the importance of the running game.