Still doubt that passing is more important that rushing?

[perrykemp]

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

What the metrics tell us is that it's not the # of yards a team passed for (or whether they passed for more than the opposing team) that's important.

What's important is the QB rating differential of your passing offense vs the other teams

It's probably the most important metrics for determining wins/losses AFTER turnover differential.

 

[wick]

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.

You are conflating two very different ideas. One is an aggregate metric across all games. What I'm talking about is passing efficiency in a single, head-to-head game. Go look at the playoff games Romo has participated in, and you're probably going to find that the team that passed more effectively won the game.

 

[wick]

What the metrics tell us is that it's not the # of yards a team passed for (or whether they passed for more than the opposing team) that's important.

What's important is the QB rating differential of your passing offense vs the other teams

It's probably the most important metrics for determining wins/losses AFTER turnover differential.

I don't know about that. I haven't done any research on it, but the team to win the turnover battle in Cowboys games this season is just 4-2 (six games because there was no turnover winner in the Saints game). The team to win the passing battle is 7-0.

 

[burmafrd]

this is where the stat guys always blow it. Trying to boil down to such simple numbers the most intricate game on the planet.

Seattle won their SB running the ball. They lost the other passing it.

You can control a game much better running then passing. Keeping your opposing team on the D for over half the time is a winning formula that has stood the test of time.
Now of course you have to hold onto the ball= if the boys had not had those turnovers we would be close to 500 ball right now.

Bluntly speaking turnovers have decided many more games then just passing or running ever has.

 

[wick]

this is where the stat guys always blow it. Trying to boil down to such simple numbers the most intricate game on the planet.

Seattle won their SB running the ball. They lost the other passing it.

You can control a game much better running then passing. Keeping your opposing team on the D for over half the time is a winning formula that has stood the test of time.
Now of course you have to hold onto the ball= if the boys had not had those turnovers we would be close to 500 ball right now.

Bluntly speaking turnovers have decided many more games then just passing or running ever has.

Seattle won games when it passed the ball better than its opponents and lost when it didn't. That happened whether they ran the ball better or not. As mentioned in another post, the winner of the passing battle in Dallas' games this season is 7-0. The winner of the rushing battle is 3-4. The winner of the turnover battle is 4-2 (doesn't add to seven because there were no turnovers in the Saints game).

You can argue what you think should be true until you are blue in the face, but it won't change what is actually true.

 

[burmafrd]

Seattle won games when it passed the ball better than its opponents and lost when it didn't. That happened whether they ran the ball better or not. As mentioned in another post, the winner of the passing battle in Dallas' games this season is 7-0. The winner of the rushing battle is 3-4. The winner of the turnover battle is 4-2 (doesn't add to seven because there were no turnovers in the Saints game).

You can argue what you think should be true until you are blue in the face, but it won't change what is actually true.

any time someone claims their "facts" are the only ones around I laugh because they already lost the argument. Stats are nice to look at but no one ever won a game on stats. Its called making plays.

 

[wick]

any time someone claims their "facts" are the only ones around I laugh because they already lost the argument. Stats are nice to look at but no one ever won a game on stats. Its called making plays.

You haven't presented any facts. The statements you made that you purport to be facts are simply incorrect opinions (e.g. "You can control a game much better running then passing"). You do realize that stats are simply tabulations of events that actually occurred, right?

 

[Brooksey]

What the metrics tell us is that it's not the # of yards a team passed for (or whether they passed for more than the opposing team) that's important.

What's important is the QB rating differential of your passing offense vs the other teams

It's probably the most important metrics for determining wins/losses AFTER turnover differential.

That why Romo makes what he makes.

 

[Brooksey]

Seattle won games when it passed the ball better than its opponents and lost when it didn't. That happened whether they ran the ball better or not. As mentioned in another post, the winner of the passing battle in Dallas' games this season is 7-0. The winner of the rushing battle is 3-4. The winner of the turnover battle is 4-2 (doesn't add to seven because there were no turnovers in the Saints game).

You can argue what you think should be true until you are blue in the face, but it won't change what is actually true.

Yes but without the threat of the run with Lynch, the passing game is not as successful. Where is the threat of the run in your stats? With pick plays aside, are they as successful against all out pass defenses, d-lines with ears pinned back, blitzes etc? Doubt it.

Without a good running game, there is no threat of the run.

 

[Idgit]

Yes but without the threat of the run with Lynch, the passing game is not as successful. Where is the threat of the run in your stats? With pick plays aside, are they as successful against all out pass defenses, d-lines with ears pinned back, blitzes etc? Doubt it.

Without a good running game, there is no threat of the run.

The argument doesn't really have anything to do with the threat of the run. There are downs and distances in football where running the ball is necessary to get you in positions for your passing game to convert. And there are situations like goal line and short yardage where running the ball extends drives or ends in points. So the running game is important.

Running better than the other team, though, isn't very important at all. And that's mostly because (I believe) most runs aren't dynamic long runs. Most runs are of the less-than-3-yard variety that all teams execute with regularity. The relatively few dynamic runs that change the averages and make teams look spectacular on the ground are rare enough that they get swamped by the sheer number of passing plays of similar distance that you get when you have a good QB.

As for the rest of it, every time we have this debate, we spend half the thread ignoring one end or the other of the differential part of the equation. Mostly, it's that stopping the other guys from passing effectively is just as important as passing effectively itself.

And, burm, the 'numbers guys' don't 'blow it.' The data is the data and the information is the information. The numbers are just an attempt to measure what's really going on. When they're entirely consistent with what you also observe on the field, that tells you something. Turnovers are part of the effectiveness part of the equation and they're a big part of why it's as illustrative as it is. The fact that SEA lost their Superbowl on an ineffective pass also supports the side you're trying to argue against.

 

[cowboys2233]

Agreed.

But by that time it may be too late to save this season.

Go 1-1 in the next two and you have a wee bit of a chance.

Go 0-2 and your playoff hopes go pffffttt.

If we lose to the Bucs, Romo or no Romo, we weren't supposed to be in the playoffs anyway.

 

[wick]

Yes but without the threat of the run with Lynch, the passing game is not as successful. Where is the threat of the run in your stats? With pick plays aside, are they as successful against all out pass defenses, d-lines with ears pinned back, blitzes etc? Doubt it.

Without a good running game, there is no threat of the run.

You are assuming "the threat of the run" leads to improved passing, but you don't provide any actual data to back it up. How do you explain the second Giants game, as one example? That was by far Dallas' best rushing game, so to the extent that running makes passing more effective, it should have been most pronounced in that game. Instead, it was our second-worst game of the season in passer rating.

Or look at the flip side. In our three worst games running the ball, you'd anticipate a negative impact in passing if a correlation exists between running well and passing well. Instead, those three games produced our three best passer rating performances.

It's fine to have a hypothesis, but you have to then prove it. Can you do it?

 

[Brooksey]

The argument doesn't really have anything to do with the threat of the run. There are downs and distances in football where running the ball is necessary to get you in positions for your passing game to convert. And there are situations like goal line and short yardage where running the ball extends drives or ends in points. So the running game is important.

Running better than the other team, though, isn't very important at all. And that's mostly because (I believe) most runs aren't dynamic long runs. Most runs are of the less-than-3-yard variety that all teams execute with regularity. The relatively few dynamic runs that change the averages and make teams look spectacular on the ground are rare enough that they get swamped by the sheer number of passing plays of similar distance that you get when you have a good QB.

As for the rest of it, every time we have this debate, we spend half the thread ignoring one end or the other of the differential part of the equation. Mostly, it's that stopping the other guys from passing effectively is just as important as passing effectively itself.

And, burm, the 'numbers guys' don't 'blow it.' The data is the data and the information is the information. The numbers are just an attempt to measure what's really going on. When they're entirely consistent with what you also observe on the field, that tells you something. Turnovers are part of the effectiveness part of the equation and they're a big part of why it's as illustrative as it is. The fact that SEA lost their Superbowl on an ineffective pass also supports the side you're trying to argue against.

Idgit, you're a passing differential groupie so this response is expected as always. As usual youre lost on the differential stats from FO's and fail to realize how the running game or threat thereof, helps the qb and the offense as a whole. It may or may not show up in the stats. Last year was a great example of balance.

Last year we heard crickets from you on this subject.

 

[Brooksey]

You are assuming "the threat of the run" leads to improved passing, but you don't provide any actual data to back it up. How do you explain the second Giants game, as one example? That was by far Dallas' best rushing game, so to the extent that running makes passing more effective, it should have been most pronounced in that game. Instead, it was our second-worst game of the season in passer rating.

Or look at the flip side. In our three worst games running the ball, you'd anticipate a negative impact in passing if a correlation exists between running well and passing well. Instead, those three games produced our three best passer rating performances.

It's fine to have a hypothesis, but you have to then prove it. Can you do it?

My proof is our 2014 record and our last three rings. Keep pushing that 2012 ****

 

[Bleu Star]

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 only thing that gives your thread any validity is the absence of Demarco. If he were still here, you would have never made this thread.

Major front office failure thinking they could just replace Demarco with this clown. I say that now for the hundredth time.

Bye Felicia.... Lots of meat still on the bone.

 

[Idgit]

Idgit, you're a passing differential groupie so this response is expected as always. As usual youre lost on the differential stats from FO's and fail to realize how the running game or threat thereof, helps the qb and the offense as a whole. It may or may not show up in the stats. Last year was a great example of balance.

Last year we heard crickets from you on this subject.

Last you you very much did *not* hear crickets from me on the subject. I was very much in the exact camp I'm in this year. I got nothing against the running game, one way or another. If it running the ball keeps us from taking chances and making mistakes in the passing game, I'm all for it. If it doesn't, then it doesn't really matter, anyway. Last year, we saw the back half of the equation everybody keeps not remembering exists again in that our defense took the ball away a lot and made a significant improvement over the year prior in terms of making it harder for other teams to pass effectively against Dallas. Hence, we one several more of those 5 games we'd lost by a total of 8 points in 2013.

Couple that with---wait for it---increased passing efficiency from Tony Romo, and you had a better season. Oh, and Murray had a lot of yards because we fed him the ball a whole lot.

I got nothing against that. Feed whoever the ball as much as you like as long as we stay in passing situations where Tony can convert. Because we've seen first hand this year what happens when you can't pass effectively.

 

[wick]

My proof is our 2014 record and our last three rings. Keep pushing that 2012 ****

Please break down the 2014 season by looking at each matchup and determining the record of the team that had the higher passer rating versus the team that had more rushing yards or the higher yards per rushing attempt. Then look at the correlation between rushing well and passing well. When you're done, please post your findings.

 

[wick]

The only thing that gives your thread any validity is the absence of Demarco. If he were still here, you would have never made this thread.

Major front office failure thinking they could just replace Demarco with this clown. I say that now for the hundredth time.

Bye Felicia.... Lots of meat still on the bone.

Your post makes no sense on any level.

 

[Bleu Star]

Your post makes no sense on any level.

I rarely do to those that don't understand.

 

[Brooksey]

Please break down the 2014 season by looking at each matchup and determining the record of the team that had the higher passer rating versus the team that had more rushing yards or the higher yards per rushing attempt. Then look at the correlation between rushing well and passing well. When you're done, please post your findings.

To look at how the run or threat of the run helps passing efficiency, go look our last four years under Jason Garrett and then look at 2014 on it's own. We went from a 65-70% pass to run ratio to 50-50 in 2014. That balance helped Romo pass less and be more efficient when he did.

The other thing you can look at in 2014 is how well we ran the ball the previous three weeks with more weight on the last week, try to determine how the opposing defense would try to defend our running game and our passing game. Are we throwing against a 5 man box or an 8 man box? If they are committed to stop the run, doesn't that help the passing game? Doesn't that lead to 7 and 8 man boxes that can be exploited through the air? I guess that's not in your stat line. Go to the all-22 and get your pencil out, I'm curious about the last 64 games. Come back and tell me in six weeks or so. I promise I'm interested.