Still doubt that passing is more important that rushing?

[Rack]

Not mocking you wick... it wasn't that long ago when folks were ripping Garrett for not committing to the run.

But I agree with your take.

Thinking a running game combined with a very conservative passing game is going to put points on the board is goofy.

A good running game controls the clock but it's the passing game that puts up the points.

This offense is unwatchable.

I'd rather have them put the ball up 45 times... At least that would be entertaining.

You don't have to "out pass" the opponent to win. Good defense and a productive running game will do it, but you do have to be efficient in the passing game. You have to take advantage of big play opportunities and convert third downs.

We haven't been losing cuz we don't have an elite passing game. We're losing cuz the passing game has been horrible. It just needs to be solid to go along with running game and defense. It hasn't even come close.

I'd like to see what Moore can do. Might as well, it's the only way to keep the season alive till Romo comes back IMO.

 

[AdamJT13]

In our past 30 games, the team that has passed more effectively has won.

Surely just a coincidence.

 

[AdamJT13]

You don't have to "out pass" the opponent to win. Good defense and a productive running game will do it, but you do have to be efficient in the passing game.

You almost always have to be more effective than your opponent in the passing game to win in the NFL. If your pass defense can make the opponent less effective than your pass offense, then you'll usually win, no matter how productive your running game is. But if your opponent passes more effectively than you, then even a great running game is almost never good enough to win.

 

[Nav22]

"Sticking to the run wins football games, and posting up your big guys wins basketball games!"

-Out-of-touch, old people

 

[StevenOtero]

Today. Now, next week, he might not.

I think it's hilarious.

The permabanned Cowboys&LakersFan makes a throw away account called RUNDMC and is up to his old tricks.

He's either saying we are Super Bowl Bound or FIRE EVERYONE because they're all clowns.

 

[Idgit]

I think it's hilarious.

The permabanned Cowboys&LakersFan makes a throw away account called RUNDMC and is up to his old tricks.

He's either saying we are Super Bowl Bound or FIRE EVERYONE because they're all clowns.

@RunDMC, you're not really the Cowboys&LakersFan, are you? PM me if you are, because I've got a funny joke I wanted to share with you about the Lakers if you haven't heard it yet.

Also, just a warning to everybody about thread-spamming and posting messages intentionally in the wrong forums. We've got a rant forum for a reason, and don't want unrelated threads to be littered with tripe that we intentionally move to the Rant Zone.

Also also, this is a family friendly site. Just because we have language filters, it doesn't mean that everything you're posting is family friendly as a result. If you think you're just going to come in and make a mess for the staff to clean up or other posters to wade around and there won't be any consequences, that's not the case.

 

[Rack]

You almost always have to be more effective than your opponent in the passing game to win in the NFL. If your pass defense can make the opponent less effective than your pass offense, then you'll usually win, no matter how productive your running game is. But if your opponent passes more effectively than you, then even a great running game is almost never good enough to win.

I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just saying we don't have to put up 300+ and 3 TD's to win. It just has to convert on 3rd downs and hit a big play or two to win. You Don't Need elite passing stats to win.

It's a team game. You need a good balance from defense, offense and special teams along with a balance within each (offense needs to have a good balance of pass/run effectiveness and limit turnovers, defense needs to do a solid job of stopping run/pass and create turnoverd. ST's needs to win on field position, etc...)

 

[Irvin88_4life]

I'll take my ground and pound rushing attack and defeat your passing team everytime.

Because had we stayed rushing inside the redzone we get TDs instead of 2 yard completions and then kick a FG. I love to ground and pound, need to throw in some passes but don't go away from running it.

 

[xwalker]

I'm not particularly fixated on how you measure passing or rushing, so I'll use quarterback rating, yards rushing, and yards per rush here. I'm sure there are better ways to evaluate each, but it doesn't really matter. In Dallas' seven games, here's the record for the team that has won each metric:

• QB Rating: 7-0
• Yards rushing: 3-4
• Yards per rush: 3-4

If you can't pass better than the opponent, you lose. Jason Garrett seems to think otherwise, and he will never be correct. We'll continue losing games as long as he approaches them with the idea that we will win with the ground game and just try not to make any mistakes in the passing game. It's a recipe doomed from the start.

No, any conclusions on the running game ate not valid in relation to this theory.

The theory that the team with the better passing differential wins is true; however trying to use yards to measure the effect of the running game on winning is flawed.

The threat of the run improves "passing efficiency". A defense can play two offenses that both have 50 yards rushing but they play 8 man in the box against 1 offense and 7 men in the box against the the other offense. The passing benefits when the defens plays 8 in the box to contain the run but it does not show up in the yardage ststs.

Also a team that can consistently rush for 1st downs can't be determined by yardage stats. In fact the rushing average goes down because of short yardage plays because they are only blocking to get 1 or 2 yards.

 

[JohnsKey19]

I'm not particularly fixated on how you measure passing or rushing, so I'll use quarterback rating, yards rushing, and yards per rush here. I'm sure there are better ways to evaluate each, but it doesn't really matter. In Dallas' seven games, here's the record for the team that has won each metric:

• QB Rating: 7-0
• Yards rushing: 3-4
• Yards per rush: 3-4

If you can't pass better than the opponent, you lose. Jason Garrett seems to think otherwise, and he will never be correct. We'll continue losing games as long as he approaches them with the idea that we will win with the ground game and just try not to make any mistakes in the passing game. It's a recipe doomed from the start.

I agree with the general premise. This is a passing league for sure. However the running game would produce different results when the RB is even a top 10 player at the position and not arguably the among the worst starter in the league.

 

[Hardline]

Did the NFL count the second Giants game as a win?

Does this question mean you don't understand my post?

 

[Brooksey]

I'm not particularly fixated on how you measure passing or rushing, so I'll use quarterback rating, yards rushing, and yards per rush here. I'm sure there are better ways to evaluate each, but it doesn't really matter. In Dallas' seven games, here's the record for the team that has won each metric:

• QB Rating: 7-0
• Yards rushing: 3-4
• Yards per rush: 3-4

If you can't pass better than the opponent, you lose. Jason Garrett seems to think otherwise, and he will never be correct. We'll continue losing games as long as he approaches them with the idea that we will win with the ground game and just try not to make any mistakes in the passing game. It's a recipe doomed from the start.

The run game sets up the passing game and the passing game sets up the running game, they are complimentary, your post is ELEMENTARY.

How did we look with a HEALTHY Romo/Dez and no running game from 2011-2014? WE were throwing it 45-50 times a game, where did it get us?

8-8 THREE YEARS IN A ROW. Mediocre city.

It's all about creative, yet balanced play-calling, great defense and great QB play.

 

[wick]

The threat of the run improves "passing efficiency".

That's the conventional wisdom, but it doesn't play out that way in reality.

Giants 1: 80 yards rushing, 3.5 ypc, 103.3 team QB rating
Eagles: 109 yards rushing, 3.3 ypc, 106.0 team QB rating
Falcons: 127 yards rushing, 6.0 ypc, 87.8 team QB rating
Saints: 115 yards rushing, 4.1 ypc, 105.6 team QB rating
Patriots: 102 yards rushing, 4.3 ypc, 66.9 team QB rating
Giants 2: 233 yards rushing, 5.7 ypc, 62.3 team QB rating
Seahawks: 129 yards rushing, 4.3 ypc, 59.3 team QB rating

Our three best team QB rating games are the three games with the fewest yards per carry and three of the four fewest total rushing yards. The best rushing day by far led to the second-worst team QB rating. There's simply no evidence that running better leads to better passing.

 

[wick]

The run game sets up the passing game and the passing game sets up the running game, they are complimentary, your post is ELEMENTARY.

How did we look with a HEALTHY Romo/Dez and no running game from 2011-2014? WE were throwing it 45-50 times a game, where did it get us?

8-8 THREE YEARS IN A ROW. Mediocre city.

It's all about creative, yet balanced play-calling, great defense and great QB play.

Without looking, I can tell you that the team that passed better in those games won, and the team that passed worse lost. That will be true regardless of whether they ran the ball better or worse.

 

[phildadon86]

4 turnovers - no matter how they come about - is a recipe for disaster under almost any circumstance. You finish a game -4 in turnover margin and you're gonna lose more than 95% of the time.

Tell that to Arizona

 

[cowboyuptx]

It's true, it's a QB driven league... And when we're going into battle with Weeden/Cassel and having to face Ryan, Brees, Brady, Manning, and Wilson, you're going to have a tough time winning (obviously)... This is also a major reason why I think we'll only lose 1 or 2 more games all season... Soon it will be Romo facing off with Tannehill, Newton, Cousins x2, Rodgers, Fitzpatrick, and Taylor... Newton and Tannehill are both decent, but there's still a big drop from Romo to them, and the difference between Romo and QB's like Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and Cousins is massive.

 

[TheFinisher]

I'm not particularly fixated on how you measure passing or rushing, so I'll use quarterback rating, yards rushing, and yards per rush here. I'm sure there are better ways to evaluate each, but it doesn't really matter. In Dallas' seven games, here's the record for the team that has won each metric:

• QB Rating: 7-0
• Yards rushing: 3-4
• Yards per rush: 3-4

If you can't pass better than the opponent, you lose. Jason Garrett seems to think otherwise, and he will never be correct. We'll continue losing games as long as he approaches them with the idea that we will win with the ground game and just try not to make any mistakes in the passing game. It's a recipe doomed from the start.

Tony Romo has the 2nd highest QB rating in NFL history and has only 2 playoff wins. If passing efficiency were the end all be all we'd have a lot more success during that time.

 

[Brooksey]

Without looking, I can tell you that the team that passed better in those games won, and the team that passed worse lost. That will be true regardless of whether they ran the ball better or worse.

Lay it out. We outpassed most teams in those losses is what you will see. There's much more to it.

 

[perrykemp]

Tony Romo has the 2nd highest QB rating in NFL history and has only 2 playoff wins.

BTW, Russell Wilson will take the #2 spot for all-time QB rating this coming week and Romo will be bumped down to #3.

1500 attempts are required to qualify (at least according to Pro Football Statistics) and Wilson currently has 1486.

 

[wick]

Lay it out. We outpassed most teams in those losses is what you will see. There's much more to it.

I don't have the time and don't need to. The correlation between passing better than your opponent (quality, not quantity) and winning is so strong over such a long time that I don't have to look it up. You're welcome to do so, though, and when you report back, it will be an overwhelmingly obvious trend.