Stautner versus AdamJT - Just how important is that running game?

[dwmyers]

I don't have time to look at every winning team ATM, but since it's a small list, I've been looking at Super Bowl winners and losers from 1975 through 2009, and looking at where their running and passing games ranked relative to other teams. The very rough conclusions I draw are:

1. From 1975 to 1999, there was a big advantage given to balanced offenses.. i.e. teams ranked in the top 10 in both rushing and passing. Balanced offenses won 14 Super Bowls and lost 5 in that period. Only one Super Bowl winning team in that period ranked below 10 in both categories, and that was the 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers.

2. From 2000 on, offense in general becomes much less important; defense becomes far more important.

3. Rushing prowess has become progressively less important in the last decade. The last two Super Bowl losers ranked 32nd in rushing offense. 2002 Tampa Bay was 27th in rushing. 2003 New England was 27th in rushing. 2008 Pittsburgh was 23rd in rushing. 2006 Indianapolis was 18th in rushing.

4. Conversely, passing prowess has become progressively more important in the last decade.

Now to note, what Adam says is that winning (in general) is correlated with passing offense and defending the pass. What I'm looking at is the ranking of teams that played in the Super Bowl ( to cut the data set down to 'eyeball' size). But even in this apples to oranges comparison, you can see how rules changes are affecting the league.

New Orleans was the first team with a powerful balanced offense to win the Super Bowl since the Rams did it in 1999. But the memory of Dallas fans is littered with Super Bowl competitors with powerful balanced offenses. The only one that doesn't qualify as balanced in this period is the 1995 team (2nd rushing, 12th passing).

If you wonder where my stats came from, I was using Pro Football Reference. A sample data page is:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2009/

 

[Yakuza Rich]

If you run a statistical correlation between all of the main running statistics and winning in the NFL over the last 20 years, the running game has NO correlation to winning and losing in the NFL.

The 2006 Vikings were a prime example. Very good running game and a historically great run defense. And they finished 6-10 because they didn't defend the pass that well and didn't throw the ball very well.

However, I disagree with the notion that the running game is good for nothing more than to help close out games. If that was the case, then we would never run the ball in the first half, ever.

I'm not that interested in running effeciency and running effectiveness as I am into having 'balanced' playcalling. Even 'balanced playcalling' doesn't mean a team will win a game, but I think over the long haul it's important to a team's offensive success. Typically the teams that pass great but don't run well will get beaten in the end by a more balanced attack. The '07 Pats and the '09 Colts were good examples. The Colts tried to run the ball, but couldn't and were forced to throw more, but in the end, got beat by a more balanced Saints attack.

I think the issue is that the statistical guys (like myself) tend to undervalue the importance of running the ball and the traditional football minds tend to completely over-value running the football.

I think the more run focused a coach is, the more likely they are going to have a record closer to .500. So if they focus on running the ball and stopping the run, they probably won't be too bad record wise, but they probably won't have those great seasons either.

The running game helps out a lot because it protects the football better and makes defenses more leery or blitzing because if all you have to do is hand the ball off to a tailback and get him past the blitzers...he's likely going to make a big play. With passing the ball, the QB on the receivers have to be on the same page and if the corner is on the receiver, they can complete a pass and still make a minimal gain. But the chance of turning the ball over has now greatly increased. You don't have that with the running game.

I personally think that for the most part you want to keep the pass to run ration in the 50/50 to 55/45 range. You need to win the passing battle in the end to win games, but you need to use the running game to help make things a bit easier for the passing attack. If I had to choose between a great running and defending the run team vs. a great passing and defending the pass team, I'd take the latter. But I'd much rather have sound team that does everything above average.






YR