Still doubt that passing is more important that rushing?

[Brooksey]

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.

Increased passing efficiency from Romo was also a product of the running game. He threw against plenty of 7 and 8 man boxes and he threw less then he ever has under JG.

 

[wick]

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.

You didn't provide anything I asked for.

 

[Brooksey]

You didn't provide anything I asked for.

It's not my thread fail. Go get your pencil and get to work, do some real research here. Your views are not new or breaking, just another radical opinion that most football people don't agree with .

You may win over the Pass Heavy Crowd. Good job.

 

[wick]

It's not my thread fail. Go get your pencil and get to work, do some real research here. Your views are not new or breaking, just another radical opinion that most football people don't agree with .

You may win over the Pass Heavy Crowd. Good job.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. I have provided nothing but facts in this thread. You have provided opinions that are not substantiated by the facts.

 

[Brooksey]

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. I have provided nothing but facts in this thread. You have provided opinions that are not substantiated by the facts.

You provided your personal interpretation of statistical data, not facts. Big Difference.

Here's the facts: We were 8-8 for three years in a row throwing it 65-70% of the time.

Throwing it less 50%-50% pass to run but more efficiently resulted in 12-4.

 

[Nightman]

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.

I still think it is a SSS argument. It is a very good predictor of victory but so is Turnover margin and punts+TO margin.

Passing efficiency rating weighs INTs very heavily so you are combining two major factors. Let alone teams that are behind will take a lot more chances and throw a lot more INTs. Teams that are ahead will rely on their running game to move the clock and take less chances. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.

DAL outrushed NY by a lot in Game 2 and had 4 TOs. Yet they lost because of the INT return for a TD and KO return for a TD. It had nothing to do with passing. So is that a fluke or the exception that proves the rule.

 

[wick]

I still think it is a SSS argument. It is a very good predictor of victory but so is Turnover margin and punts+TO margin.

Passing efficiency rating weighs INTs very heavily so you are combining two major factors. Let alone teams that are behind will take a lot more chances and throw a lot more INTs. Teams that are ahead will rely on their running game to move the clock and take less chances. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.

DAL outrushed NY by a lot in Game 2 and had 4 TOs. Yet they lost because of the INT return for a TD and KO return for a TD. It had nothing to do with passing. So is that a fluke or the exception that proves the rule.

Our three interceptions had nothing to do with passing?

 

[Nightman]

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

Surely just a coincidence.

Didn't Romo have a better rating than Rodgers in the playoffs last year? 143.6 to 125.4

 

[wick]

You provided your personal interpretation of statistical data, not facts. Big Difference.

Here's the facts: We were 8-8 for three years in a row throwing it 65-70% of the time.

Throwing it less 50%-50% pass to run but more efficiently resulted in 12-4.

Throwing it less means you are winning and running out the clock at the end of the game. I'm also confused as to how pointing out which team wins or losses based on certain game factors is an interpretation of data. It is the data. It's not an interpretation to say that the team that has the higher passer rating is 7-0 in Dallas' games this season. That's just a fact. Similarly, it's also factual to say that the team that runs for more yards is 3-4 and the team that runs for a higher yards per carry average is also 3-4.

 

[Nightman]

Our three interceptions had nothing to do with passing?

No, at 20-20 if we don't give up the KO return and get a late FG and win, what would that say about the theory?

We would have lost the PER margin and the TO margin, yet we still won.

 

[wick]

Didn't Romo have a better rating than Rodgers in the playoffs last year? 143.6 to 125.4

Passer rating is undoubtedly not the best measure of passing more effectively. I just picked it because it required the least work, and it's close enough. That game, however, is one where you'd want a better measure like QBR. Rodgers had the higher QBR in that game, 83.1 to 77.8. There are probably even better measures than QBR, but I'm more interested in broad strokes than exacting measurements.

 

[wick]

No, at 20-20 if we don't give up the KO return and get a late FG and win, what would that say about the theory?

We would have lost the PER margin and the TO margin, yet we still won.

We didn't win, though, and three interceptions (in the passing game, obviously) was the reason why. Here are the game situations for those interceptions:

1. 2nd and 9 at the 50, Dallas leading 13-10 with 11:19 to go in the 3rd quarter. The interception was returned for a touchdown. We don't know what Dallas would have done without the interception, but at least a field goal seems likely. This was very likely a 10-point swing in the game.
2. 2nd and 7 at the NY 40, Dallas trailing 17-13 with 7:54 to go in the 3rd quarter. With Dallas essentially in field goal range already, this probably cost the Cowboys three points.
3. 1st and 15 at the NY 39, Dallas trailing 20-13 on the first play of the 4th quarter. Again, this likely cost Dallas three points.

Let's be conservative and say that Dallas would not have moved into field goal range on the interception 1 drive and that they would have tried two 50+ yard field goals on the other two interception drives, making one of the two. Even if that is all Dallas gets out of it, it's still a 10-point swing in a game the Cowboys lost by seven points.

So yes, I would say the interceptions were a massive factor in losing that game. They also explain why the Cowboys passed less effectively than the Giants.

 

[Nightman]

We didn't win, though, and three interceptions (in the passing game, obviously) was the reason why. Here are the game situations for those interceptions:

1. 2nd and 9 at the 50, Dallas leading 13-10 with 11:19 to go in the 3rd quarter. The interception was returned for a touchdown. We don't know what Dallas would have done without the interception, but at least a field goal seems likely. This was very likely a 10-point swing in the game.
2. 2nd and 7 at the NY 40, Dallas trailing 17-13 with 7:54 to go in the 3rd quarter. With Dallas essentially in field goal range already, this probably cost the Cowboys three points.
3. 1st and 15 at the NY 39, Dallas trailing 20-13 on the first play of the 4th quarter. Again, this likely cost Dallas three points.

Let's be conservative and say that Dallas would not have moved into field goal range on the interception 1 drive and that they would have tried two 50+ yard field goals on the other two interception drives, making one of the two. Even if that is all Dallas gets out of it, it's still a 10-point swing in a game the Cowboys lost by seven points.

So yes, I would say the interceptions were a massive factor in losing that game. They also explain why the Cowboys passed less effectively than the Giants.

You keep standing on this game as the big example and one or two plays that have nothing to do with passing effectively and DAL wins. So you can't just throw that away as not possible.

It is very possible that DHarris doesn't run the KO back and DAL kicks the FG from the NY 30 yard line and they win 23-20.

What would that say about the theory? Just use you imagination.

 

[Ender]

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.

ummm what healthy QB on this roster would you want throwing the ball 35 - 40 tiimes? The one that only throws check downs or the one that threw 3 picks in 5 passes?

 

[xwalker]

Increased passing efficiency from Romo was also a product of the running game. He threw against plenty of 7 and 8 man boxes and he threw less then he ever has under JG.

It is so simple to see but yet people continue to put out this nonsense about passing efficiency wins and rushing does not matter.

People that make this claim really don't understand stats past a superficial level. Rushing yardage is not a good measurement of the value of a strong running game and how it helps the passing game.

 

[xwalker]

Didn't Romo have a better rating than Rodgers in the playoffs last year? 143.6 to 125.4

The concept of the team with the better passing differential wins is an 80% concept, IIRC. It's not a 95% type of thing.

Where the entire theory goes off the rails is when people try to use it to make conclusions about the running game. The threat of the run improves passing effectiveness but people that promote the theory can't or won't acknowledge that fact because they can't measure it.

If a defense faces two offenses and both offenses gain 50 yards rushing but the defense played 7 men in the box against 1 offense and 8 men in the box against the other, the stats make it appear that both teams had equal running games; however, that is far far from the truth. The offense that faced 8 in the box had 1 less defender in coverage against the pass. The threat of the run therefore helped that team's passing effectiveness. I say threat of the run because you can't use rushing success as measured in yards because the defense adjusted to limit those.

The 7 vs 8 in the box is just a simplistic example. There are obviously many ways that defenses adjust to limit the running game at the expense of their pass coverage.

I think the Passing Effectively Differential = Wins is more of an effect not a cause of winning. By the end of the game, most teams that win will have a better passing differential than the losing team. Considering that the stats only support it at about an 80% rate makes the whole thing of minimal value.

Considering that most teams have around 400 yards of offense in a win with 300 passing and 100 rushing should make it obvious that rushing as measured in yards is not a good stat for comparison. If one team has 50 yards and the other has 100 yards rushing that 50 yards is not a big percentage of the overall 400 yards gained in the game. That's 50% more rushing yards but a 50% better day in terms of passing yards would be 150 yards for the loser compared to 300 yards for the winner. Obviously when using the stat yards, passing will correlate more than rushing just because of how the numbers work out.

The value of rushing is not the actual yards gained because the defense can adjust to limit those. It is in how the threat of the run affects the passing game and how a quality running team has an advantage in various situations like short yardage, goalline, less predictability, etc..

Another reason the stats are off is because of what happens in games where there is big difference on the scoreboard in the 2nd half or 4th quarter. Teams that are winning will often run the ball for a low average per carry while just running out the clock. Teams that are behind often throw caution to the wind and just start throwing the ball around in a desperate attempt to score in a hurry. Passing in this situation will obviously not be efficient on average.

 

[xwalker]

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.

Yes, but it has nothing to do with the running games value. The threat of a strong running game improves pass effectiveness by some amount. Without being able to measure how the threat of a strong rushing attack helps Passing Effectiveness, any conclusion about the value of rushing as it relates to the Passing Effectively concept is nonsense.

 

[xwalker]

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.

It's too bad that there is not an ordinance against people using stats without proper training.

Stats have tricked people into believing that the Passing Effectively concept somehow proves something about the value of the running game.

If they were correct, defenses would evolve into pass rushers and CBs with no LBs, Safeties or DTs.

 

[Craig]

Great rushing is more important than great passing. It doesnt matter what your rushing is doing if your qb is inept and it doesnt matter what your qb doing if your rushing is inept.

 

[wick]

You keep standing on this game as the big example and one or two plays that have nothing to do with passing effectively and DAL wins. So you can't just throw that away as not possible.

It is very possible that DHarris doesn't run the KO back and DAL kicks the FG from the NY 30 yard line and they win 23-20.

What would that say about the theory? Just use you imagination.

It's possible to win if you pass less effectively than your opponent. I don't think anyone has ever said it's not possible. But if you look at the actual results of games, there's nothing short of points scored that better correlates to winning than passing more effectively than your opponent. And to that end, the team that has done this in Dallas' games is 7-0. Per @AdamJT13, the team that has passed more effectively than the opponent in Dallas' games is 30-0 in the last 30 games. We're just talking facts here. Now, if you find that one statistic has a perfect correlation to winning over the last 30 Dallas games, don't you think that is meaningful? Or do you chalk that up to just randomness?