Significance of the running game in today's NFL

[Idgit]

...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...

I know it seems like this must be the case, but do you have any idea whether or not it actually bears out? As a point of illustration, what about a not-so-hypothetical case where your effective QB is statistically more likely to convert a 3rd and 7 than your ineffective one is to convert a 3rd and 4? When you factor in the relative effectiveness of QBs, it's can easily be the case that--while the rushing game is still very important in terms of game situations and dictating defenses and clock management and short yardage and goal line, that the variation in the relative ability of the 32 starting QBs in the league more than makes up for the relatively minor benefits of having a more effective RB. For some reason, we don't have a problem suggesting a good or great QB can cover up for limitations in a receiving corps.

The fact is, with the amount of data available, if the variations in the effectiveness of running plays were important, it would very likely be showing up someplace in teams' statistical likelihood of winning games. Now, I'm open to the idea that there is a correlation in there somewhere, and it just hasn't been unpacked yet (i.e., there can be some other compensating effect in the data we've got now that's masking a true winning correlation connected with running the football effectively). If that's ever exploded, then I'll change my opinion immediately. But, until it is, the data is the data. I'm not going to draw a conclusion contrary to what the evidence suggests just because it seems counterintuitive. To many counterintuitive things turn out to be correct in the long run for me to be comfortable with that.

 

[Idgit]

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

It's definitely not intuitive.

But the primary argument is not that the run game is not important or not a factor to winning football games. It obviously, obviously, is. The point is that, as long as you run it when and where you're supposed to, you can get where you're going. It's not all that important that you be particularly efficient in doing so. It's far more important that your QB be able to do what he needs to do once your running game gets him in position to do it.

 

[Idgit]

No, I just understand how asinine your argument is.

If you did, you wouldn't have posted what you posted. Re-read the thread.

 

[Doomsday101]

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.

True but then passing yards are not a reflection either, Heck we had several games where passing yardage was won by opposing team yet Dallas won the game.

 

[Idgit]

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.

The fact that few people make the distinction isn't relevant to whether or not the distinction is important. I'm not sure I see what you're getting at with omitting the rushing efficiency reference, but I definitely agree that rushing yardage is not a good measurement of the importance of the running game. I've said over and over that the rushing game is really important. You can't be effective passing the ball without it.

 

[Doomsday101]

It's definitely not intuitive.

But the primary argument is not that the run game is not important or not a factor to winning football games. It obviously, obviously, is. The point is that, as long as you run it when and where you're supposed to, you can get where you're going. It's not all that important that you be particularly efficient in doing so. It's far more important that your QB be able to do what he needs to do once your running game gets him in position to do it.

All I can say is I believe in effective offense which consist of the ability to run and throw. Does not mean you need a 2000 yard RB or a 5000 yard passer.

 

[Idgit]

True but then passing yards are not a reflection either, Heck we had several games where passing yardage was won by opposing team yet Dallas won the game.

It's the passing effectiveness differential that matters, though. Which is why our pass defense and lack of pressure hurt us so much in games against teams who can also pass the ball effectively.

 

[Idgit]

All I can say is I believe in effective offense which consist of the ability to run and throw. Does not mean you need a 2000 yard RB or a 5000 yard passer.

This much we can definitely agree on. You do need to both run the ball and to throw it effectively.

 

[xwalker]

The fact that few people make the distinction isn't relevant to whether or not the distinction is important. I'm not sure I see what you're getting at with omitting the rushing efficiency reference, but I definitely agree that rushing yardage is not a good measurement of the importance of the running game. I've said over and over that the rushing game is really important. You can't be effective passing the ball without it.

You agree that the running game itself is indeed important and you agree that the statistic Rushing Yardage is not important. What would be the purposes of misleading people by repeating that Rushing Effectively is not important when that's really just a meaningless statistic?

We could find lots of statistics that are basically meaningless. What would be the purpose of repeating them, especially when we know that the vast majority of people would misconstrue the actually meaning of what you're saying?

 

[jobberone]

I know it seems like this must be the case, but do you have any idea whether or not it actually bears out? As a point of illustration, what about a not-so-hypothetical case where your effective QB is statistically more likely to convert a 3rd and 7 than your ineffective one is to convert a 3rd and 4? When you factor in the relative effectiveness of QBs, it's can easily be the case that--while the rushing game is still very important in terms of game situations and dictating defenses and clock management and short yardage and goal line, that the variation in the relative ability of the 32 starting QBs in the league more than makes up for the relatively minor benefits of having a more effective RB. For some reason, we don't have a problem suggesting a good or great QB can cover up for limitations in a receiving corps.

The fact is, with the amount of data available, if the variations in the effectiveness of running plays were important, it would very likely be showing up someplace in teams' statistical likelihood of winning games. Now, I'm open to the idea that there is a correlation in there somewhere, and it just hasn't been unpacked yet (i.e., there can be some other compensating effect in the data we've got now that's masking a true winning correlation connected with running the football effectively). If that's ever exploded, then I'll change my opinion immediately. But, until it is, the data is the data. I'm not going to draw a conclusion contrary to what the evidence suggests just because it seems counterintuitive. To many counterintuitive things turn out to be correct in the long run for me to be comfortable with that.

What I said are basic tenants of football and are borne out as true over the years. Take some coaching clinics and see what's being taught. Knowing the history of the evolution of offenses and defenses will also help to understand.

 

[xwalker]

True but then passing yards are not a reflection either, Heck we had several games where passing yardage was won by opposing team yet Dallas won the game.

Adam's point is that the team that passes more effectively than their opponents wins something like 80% of the time. I don't dispute that. I only dispute his contention that the running game is of minimal importance because rushing yardage does not correlate to winning. My point is that yardage is not a good measurement of the importance of the running game. Defenses can limit rushing yardage at the expense of making themselves vulnerable to passing but that can't be shown in the available statistics.

 

[Idgit]

You agree that the running game itself is indeed important and you agree that the statistic Rushing Yardage is not important. What would be the purposes of misleading people by repeating that Rushing Effectively is not important when that's really just a meaningless statistic?

We could find lots of statistics that are basically meaningless. What would be the purpose of repeating them, especially when we know that the vast majority of people would misconstrue the actually meaning of what you're saying?

People are arguing for long term signings on the basis of rushing effectiveness. It's not misleading in any way to address the fact that that's not something that's going to help you win football games and so is not something we should invest in. The entire purpose of the thread is a discussion about the significance of the running game in today's NFL. It's very relevant to say that the significance is to get teams in positions where they're able to pass effectively and the significance is not to draft or acquire talent that's going to let your rush more effectively than your competition.
I think we all get that not all statistics are important or relevant, don't we? Hopefully, the discussion here can take that simple fact as a given. You can measure anything. The trick is in measuring what's important to winning, and then doing something based off of that relevant information you've acquired.

 

[jobberone]

It's definitely not intuitive.

But the primary argument is not that the run game is not important or not a factor to winning football games. It obviously, obviously, is. The point is that, as long as you run it when and where you're supposed to, you can get where you're going. It's not all that important that you be particularly efficient in doing so. It's far more important that your QB be able to do what he needs to do once your running game gets him in position to do it.

Running effectively doesn't always mean running efficiently whatever either means. This is a simple and complex topic that can get deeper than anyone here understands and knows.

If you force a team to throw extra resources at stopping the run you open up the passing game; if you have the personnel to do so. If you force a team to spend extra resources at stopping the passing game you create opportunities in the run game. That's simple to understand. How teams do so, making the right reads, having good play calls, execution, yada are the complexities of the game just to mention a very few.

 

[Idgit]

What I said are basic tenants of football and are borne out as true over the years. Take some coaching clinics and see what's being taught. Knowing the history of the evolution of offenses and defenses will also help to understand.

I guess I'm failing to see how a coaching clinic is going to help answer any of the questions from that post, though. I'd like to think, at least, that basic tenets would have a reflection in terms of a win correlation, but if there's some other basis for them having been borne out as true, I'm all ears. I just think it's much more likely that the variances in a QB's passing effectiveness swamp the relative small variations in a RB's rushing effectiveness. That makes sense to me, too, when I watch the games. Every Cowboy fan knows what I"m talking about if they just think back to how they feel on 3rd and 8 in a must-have situation against, say, Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees. Good QBs can pass effectively without all that much regard for the effectiveness of their running games. Fans of teams with poor pass defenses, of all people, should recognize this. It's kept us out of the playoffs three of the last four years.

 

[Idgit]

...If you force a team to throw extra resources at stopping the run you open up the passing game; if you have the personnel to do so. If you force a team to spend extra resources at stopping the passing game you create opportunities in the run game...

This is true. But teams spend those resources based off of your tendencies, your downs and your distances, and not based off of your relative effectiveness rushing the ball. They're not going to not play run on an obvious run down just because your best RB happens to be injured. They're going to play run when they expect you to run and try to stop you.

 

[Idgit]

...I only dispute his contention that the running game is of minimal importance because rushing yardage does not correlate to winning...

I really don't think Adam's ever said that the running game was of minimal importance. He's always granted that obvious rushing situations exist. And that short yardage effectiveness also does have a relevant correlation to winning, for that matter.

 

[xwalker]

People are arguing for long term signings on the basis of rushing effectiveness. It's not misleading in any way to address the fact that that's not something that's going to help you win football games and so is not something we should invest in. The entire purpose of the thread is a discussion about the significance of the running game in today's NFL. It's very relevant to say that the significance is to get teams in positions where they're able to pass effectively and the significance is not to draft or acquire talent that's going to let your rush more effectively than your competition.
I think we all get that not all statistics are important or relevant, don't we? Hopefully, the discussion here can take that simple fact as a given. You can measure anything. The trick is in measuring what's important to winning, and then doing something based off of that relevant information you've acquired.

I thought that you understood that it is not the running game that is unimportant, it's the statistic rushing yardage on a per game basis that is unimportant.

Now your flipping back and saying don't draft a RB because the running game is not important to winning. We just got though establishing that it is not the running game itself that is unimportant, it is the statistic that is being used to measure it (yardage) that is unimportant on a per game basis.

You can't possible believe that D-Coordinators were not making adjustment this season in an attempt to limit the Cowboys rushing attack which in turn help the passing game. The rushing yardage per game might not have correlated but that's because the defenses adjusted to limit it.

Again, please consider this example where both teams had the same amount of rushing yards. This explains why rushing yards don't correlate.

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.

 

[jobberone]

This is true. But teams spend those resources based off of your tendencies, your downs and your distances, and not based off of your relative effectiveness rushing the ball. They're not going to not play run on an obvious run down just because your best RB happens to be injured. They're going to play run when they expect you to run and try to stop you.

I'm speaking in generalities and not detailed specifics.

 

[Doomsday101]

It's the passing effectiveness differential that matters, though. Which is why our pass defense and lack of pressure hurt us so much in games against teams who can also pass the ball effectively.

Adam's point is that the team that passes more effectively than their opponents wins something like 80% of the time. I don't dispute that. I only dispute his contention that the running game is of minimal importance because rushing yardage does not correlate to winning. My point is that yardage is not a good measurement of the importance of the running game. Defenses can limit rushing yardage at the expense of making themselves vulnerable to passing but that can't be shown in the available statistics.

No doubt and defense can go into nickel and dime packages to slow up a passing game or can bring heat, for every action there is a reaction. I agree yardage is not a great measurement be in passing yards or rushing yards. The game is won by points. I would also add different teams run different systems, some that are predicated more towards the pass and others more towards the run and both systems have worked in the NFL even in recent years. The caveat then becomes well pass defense and teams like Seattle will be pointed to yet that is a bit misleading when the fact is Seahawks are great vs both run and pass defense.

In my view 1 dimensional teams will struggle

 

[jobberone]

I guess I'm failing to see how a coaching clinic is going to help answer any of the questions from that post, though. I'd like to think, at least, that basic tenets would have a reflection in terms of a win correlation, but if there's some other basis for them having been borne out as true, I'm all ears. I just think it's much more likely that the variances in a QB's passing effectiveness swamp the relative small variations in a RB's rushing effectiveness. That makes sense to me, too, when I watch the games. Every Cowboy fan knows what I"m talking about if they just think back to how they feel on 3rd and 8 in a must-have situation against, say, Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees. Good QBs can pass effectively without all that much regard for the effectiveness of their running games. Fans of teams with poor pass defenses, of all people, should recognize this. It's kept us out of the playoffs three of the last four years.

I don't know how to say things any clearer. You don't just learn Xs and Os at coaching clinics but basic football philosophy. Clearly one can learn that in other ways though.

Again I'm speaking in generalities. The topic is running effectively so I don't understand why you are getting into minutia.

If you're looking for proofs then I'm not certain I can give you more.