Still doubt that passing is more important that rushing?

[AdamJT13]

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.

More like "the threat of a running game" is some abstruse concept made up by those who think the running game is vitally important but don't have any way to show it, and they know it. The fact is, "the threat of a running game" doesn't come into play the vast majority of times in the most crucial of situations in the NFL (third-and-long, two-minute offense, late-game rallies, etc.) -- and even when it might, the effect is minimal. (For example, as has been proved many times, even the worst running teams can be effective at play-action passing, because defenses react to down-and-distance, formations and execution more than they do to prior rushing success or any immeasurable "running threat.")

You can come up with any definition you want of "threat of a running game," and there still will be no game-to-game correlation with passing success -- how would a team have a "threat of a running game" in some games and not others, when the personnel is exactly the same? Never mind that the defensive aspect of passing effectiveness doesn't having any correlation to the opponent's "threat of a running game," either.

 

[xwalker]

More like "the threat of a running game" is some abstruse concept made up by those who think the running game is vitally important but don't have any way to show it, and they know it. The fact is, "the threat of a running game" doesn't come into play the vast majority of times in the most crucial of situations in the NFL (third-and-long, two-minute offense, late-game rallies, etc.) -- and even when it might, the effect is minimal. (For example, as has been proved many times, even the worst running teams can be effective at play-action passing, because defenses react to down-and-distance, formations and execution more than they do to prior rushing success or any immeasurable "running threat.")

You can come up with any definition you want of "threat of a running game," and there still will be no game-to-game correlation with passing success -- how would a team have a "threat of a running game" in some games and not others, when the personnel is exactly the same? Never mind that the defensive aspect of passing effectiveness doesn't having any correlation to the opponent's "threat of a running game," either.

It is not my theory or anybody that knows that the PE theory proves nothing in regards to the running games importance. The burden of proof is on the PE theorists.

The effectiveness of play action shows that the threat of the run does affect passing. AGAIN, "worst" running team is something that you are measuring by yardage which I've already explained is a bad measuring tool.

IIRC Marshawn Lynch does not have a great ypc this season but I think we all know that on any given snap that he is as strong of a threat as any RB playing this season. Defenses will respect him regardless of his currect ypc.

If Murray were still here defenses would still likely give him max respect even if his ypc this year was terrible.

This gets whole issue gets into how defenses plan for and react to things like the threat of the rush. You're never going to be able to measure the mindset of defenses. I don't know if they play 8 in the box because of rushing success in that game, in the previous game, for the season, for last season or just based on the particular runners reputation.

The equation for winning football games and accurately defining the interdependence of the running and passing game in statistical terms is beyond the resources of fans.

If some fans feel good by believing that they've found this secret to winning with simplistic stats that is their perrogative. If it makes them feel good to think they are statistical analyst sleuths that's fine also. Whatever the case, it's still nonsense.

The general concept of PE(winner)
> PE(loser) {80%} is about as enlightening as Points(winner) > Points(loser) {100%} .

It would be really odd if the losing team always had a better PE.

Most likely the effect of winning is a better PE. Being up on the scoreboard likely leads to more efficient passing while being behind likely leads to less efficient passing. Regardless none of this is being analyzed as possibilities in the PE wins (80%) theory.

 

[AdamJT13]

The effectiveness of play action shows that the threat of the run does affect passing. AGAIN, "worst" running team is something that you are measuring by yardage which I've already explained is a bad measuring tool.

Yes, your entire "threat" theory is based on some immeasurable concept. It can't be rushing yards, it can't be rushing attempts, it can't be rushing success rate, it can't be personnel, it can't be anything specific at all because then it could be measured, and you'd have to admit that your theory is a bunch of bunk.

IIRC Marshawn Lynch does not have a great ypc this season but I think we all know that on any given snap that he is as strong of a threat as any RB playing this season. Defenses will respect him regardless of his currect ypc.

If Murray were still here defenses would still likely give him max respect even if his ypc this year was terrible.

If the name on the jersey is what constitutes a "threat," there would be a correlation for when those players are on the field, when they're not on the field or when they miss games. And it would be a consistent correlation from game to game -- unless you think the "threat" of a Marshawn Lynch or Demarco Murray changes from week to week, from quarter to quarter or from play to play.

But of course, there is no correlation. The same personnel against the same defense can have wildly different success in passing efficiency even with the same "running threat" in the backfield.

The equation for winning football games and accurately defining the interdependence of the running and passing game in statistical terms is beyond the resources of fans.

If some fans feel good by believing that they've found this secret to winning with simplistic stats that is their perrogative. If it makes them feel good to think they are statistical analyst sleuths that's fine also. Whatever the case, it's still nonsense.

The fact that you think this is some "secret found by some fans" shows how little you know and how much you've actually cared to research on the topic.

The general concept of PE(winner)
> PE(loser) {80%} is about as enlightening as Points(winner) > Points(loser) {100%} .

It would be really odd if the losing team always had a better PE.

What you don't seem to grasp is that there is no other measurement except points that has anywhere near the same correlation as passing efficiency. You just think, oh, the winning team obviously will have been more effective at passing 80 percent of the time. But that's not true of anything else in football.

Most likely the effect of winning is a better PE. Being up on the scoreboard likely leads to more efficient passing while being behind likely leads to less efficient passing.

That has been thoroughly researched and debunked. There is not a shred of evidence that says teams typically take the lead WITHOUT passing more effectively. Passing more effectively in the first quarter almost always means you're leading in the first quarter. Passing more effectively in the first half almost always means you're leading in the first half. Passing more effectively in the first three quarters almost always means you're leading in the first three quarters. And if you're trailing in the fourth quarter, passing more effectively in the fourth quarter is almost always what you will need to do to win. The passing-to-winning correlation is very high at any point in the game -- and the onus is on the trailing team to change that.

 

[Zekeats]

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.

We are losing games not because we aren't passing too much, but because we aren't running enough with a real RB. McFadden is what he is, a 3.4 yards per carry running back when given decent holes to run through. His game against the giants was fools gold and should not have been looked at as things to come because he is not that good and he really never was.

Don't forget the main reason that Romo had his BEST season last year was because of the run game and basically a pitch count on his throws. I am sure anytime he threw less than 30 times we won the game last season.

 

[ufcrules1]

We were in fact successful last year because of a tremendous oline AND tremendous run game. That made Romo's life easy and that is why he had so much success last year.

At the end of the day we are handicapped though because of the owner or this team. He will only hire puppet coaches because he can't ever hold onto a real coach who wants control of his team. He has yes men coaches. JG is a horrible coach but a very smart man, he will never stand up to Jerry because he knows he can do just enough to keep his job here and continue to make millions. He would have been fired by now on any other team. 3 8x8 seasons and he is about to have a 4th one. STILL learning on the job and some of you don't even realize it.

 

[Alexander]

It still blows my mind that there is this attempt to quantify the formula to winning football games. This is not baseball. There are very few statistics, if any, that apply to a team sport like this.

If passing is so crucial, why does a team like Seattle that is about as big into analytics as anyone devote time and valuable cap space to a running back by Lynch and stress ball control?

Running well can make a QB more efficient situationally and the end result is usually better than when the opposite occurs. I would hope last year and Romo's best season provided enough evidence of that.

You can still look at examples each week to find where it just is not completely reliable to the degree it is with Dallas. We are 30 and 0, usually it means Romo was better than the other guy, but how often was the run game better? I bet at least 12 times or more last year.

Bringing this up right now is probably the wrong time considering our QB situation is the absolute worst. It just means what? We need a better QB to win? Of course we do.

This is just last week's results.

Rivers better than Flacco. Lost.

Manning better than Brees. Lost.

Cutler better than Bridgewater. Lost.

Look at Rodgers. "Better" than all the winners, had one of the more ineffective football games you could imagine.

I guess using a nebulous term like "passing effectiveness" is a nice handy way of making something vague seem more concrete.

It also shows that if the QB does not do well overall, it causes the rest of the team stress to compensate and that is not always good for a team winning. Handing the ball off is a simple process and much easier to defend, so it is very simple to conclude that it has a tougher degree to measure "effectiveness".

If a team is winning and has a lead, it is easier to pass than from behind, which is a good reason why teams that lose tend to have lower efficiency from the QB. There are different ways to establish dominance enough to win and take control of a football game. Once that happens then it is pretty easy for a QB to be more "effective".

 

[wick]

We are losing games not because we aren't passing too much, but because we aren't running enough with a real RB. McFadden is what he is, a 3.4 yards per carry running back when given decent holes to run through. His game against the giants was fools gold and should not have been looked at as things to come because he is not that good and he really never was.

Don't forget the main reason that Romo had his BEST season last year was because of the run game and basically a pitch count on his throws. I am sure anytime he threw less than 30 times we won the game last season.

Dallas is averaging two fewer rushing attempts per game and 0.1 fewer yards per rush. We're throwing it two more times per game. Those things are all basically equivalent. Since we've been losing far more often this year than last, I'd guess we are probably attempting more runs through three quarters this year than last. You know what's really different, though?

Our passing effectiveness. Dallas' team passer rating is 86.0 this year, down from 110.9 last year.

 

[Brooksey]

Dallas is averaging two fewer rushing attempts per game and 0.1 fewer yards per rush. We're throwing it two more times per game. Those things are all basically equivalent. Since we've been losing far more often this year than last, I'd guess we are probably attempting more runs through three quarters this year than last. You know what's really different, though?

Our passing effectiveness. Dallas' team passer rating is 86.0 this year, down from 110.9 last year.

That's because we have a backup QB. When Romo was healthy with a suspect running game (2010-2013) he was not as efficient as he was in 2014. As our offensive line came together in 2014 we made defenses respect both the run and the pass. Much more difficult to defend.

Both the run and pass compliment each other. It's tough to run without a good passing game and it's tough to pass without a good running game based on what the defense is going to show you.

 

[Alexander]

That's because we have a backup QB. When Romo was healthy with a suspect running game (2010-2013) he was not as efficient as he was in 2014. As our offensive line came together in 2014 we made defenses respect both the run and the pass. Much more difficult to defend.

Both the run and pass compliment each other. It's tough to run without a good passing game and it's tough to pass without a good running game based on what the defense is going to show you.

Curious what Romo's record was when we were pass happy two-three years ago. I doubt he had a higher QBR than our opponent in every win. It is great we are 30 and 0 when he did better in the "sample". 12 of those were times he had a running game.

 

[wick]

It's tough to run without a good passing game

Four of the top five teams in net yards per pass rank in the bottom 20 in yards per rush.

 

[AdamJT13]

It still blows my mind that there is this attempt to quantify the formula to winning football games. This is not baseball. There are very few statistics, if any, that apply to a team sport like this.

You're right -- most of the stats that people think are important to winning football games have been proved to have little or no correlation to winning in the NFL. Passing efficiency, however, is not one of them. Every statistical analysis done for the past 30-plus years has determined that passing efficiency has a very high correlation to winning in the NFL.

If passing is so crucial, why does a team like Seattle that is about as big into analytics as anyone devote time and valuable cap space to a running back by Lynch and stress ball control?

Behavior does not determine correlation. But you'll notice what Seattle also stresses -- pass defense. People get so caught up in the offensive side of the equation that they forget that defensive pass efficiency is just as important -- you only need to be better than your opponent. If you have a top-notch pass defense, then you can win with with a mediocre passing game WHEN it performs better than that week's opponent's passing game does.

Running well can make a QB more efficient situationally and the end result is usually better than when the opposite occurs.

Running well actually has very little effect on passing efficiency. That's the point. No matter what people believe or say, it doesn't happen in reality. Even the "threat of a running game" because of the name in the backfield doesn't help passing efficiency -- we averaged more yards per pass when Murray was not on the field last year than when he was on the field, the Seahawks average more yards per pass when Lynch is not on the field than when he is, the Vikings average more yards per pass when Peterson is not on the field than when he is, etc., etc. I could go on and on.

We are 30 and 0, usually it means Romo was better than the other guy, but how often was the run game better? I bet at least 12 times or more last year.

I guess using a nebulous term like "passing effectiveness" is a nice handy way of making something vague seem more concrete.

There is nothing nebulous about a measurable fact.

If a team is winning and has a lead, it is easier to pass than from behind, which is a good reason why teams that lose tend to have lower efficiency from the QB.

Actually, the opposite is true. Winning teams in games are actually more efficient passing when BEHIND than when they are ahead. The same is true of losing teams in games -- they are more efficient when BEHIND than when they are ahead. Both winners and losers have a higher ANYPA and higher passer rating when behind than when they are ahead.

Overall, teams appear to be more effective passing when ahead ONLY because the better passing teams are usually the ones that ARE ahead. But when you look closer, teams are actually less efficient passing when they are ahead than when they are behind OR when they are tied.

There are different ways to establish dominance enough to win and take control of a football game. Once that happens then it is pretty easy for a QB to be more "effective".

This has been thoroughly researched, and there is no evidence that the correlation between passing efficiency and winning is only because winning CAUSES pass efficiency. As shown above, pass efficiency clearly is the cause of winning and not a result of it.

 

[Nightman]

You're right -- most of the stats that people think are important to winning football games have been proved to have little or no correlation to winning in the NFL. Passing efficiency, however, is not one of them. Every statistical analysis done for the past 30-plus years has determined that passing efficiency has a very high correlation to winning in the NFL.



Behavior does not determine correlation. But you'll notice what Seattle also stresses -- pass defense. People get so caught up in the offensive side of the equation that they forget that defensive pass efficiency is just as important -- you only need to be better than your opponent. If you have a top-notch pass defense, then you can win with with a mediocre passing game WHEN it performs better than that week's opponent's passing game does.



Running well actually has very little effect on passing efficiency. That's the point. No matter what people believe or say, it doesn't happen in reality. Even the "threat of a running game" because of the name in the backfield doesn't help passing efficiency -- we averaged more yards per pass when Murray was not on the field last year than when he was on the field, the Seahawks average more yards per pass when Lynch is not on the field than when he is, the Vikings average more yards per pass when Peterson is not on the field than when he is, etc., etc. I could go on and on.










There is nothing nebulous about a measurable fact.





Actually, the opposite is true. Winning teams in games are actually more efficient passing when BEHIND than when they are ahead. The same is true of losing teams in games -- they are more efficient when BEHIND than when they are ahead. Both winners and losers have a higher ANYPA and higher passer rating when behind than when they are ahead.

Overall, teams appear to be more effective passing when ahead ONLY because the better passing teams are usually the ones that ARE ahead. But when you look closer, teams are actually less efficient passing when they are ahead than when they are behind OR when they are tied.




This has been thoroughly researched, and there is no evidence that the correlation between passing efficiency and winning is only because winning CAUSES pass efficiency. As shown above, pass efficiency clearly is the cause of winning and not a result of it.

I think some of the push back is because your side doesn't define 'Passing Efficiency' clearly enough.

When you use Passer Rating or QBR the facts don't support the theory, but as you explained earlier if you use ANY/A is holds tight.

It is the second strongest predictor behind Points Differential.

 

[AdamJT13]

I think some of the push back is because your side doesn't define 'Passing Efficiency' clearly enough.

When you use Passer Rating or QBR the facts don't support the theory, but as you explained earlier if you use ANY/A is holds tight.

It is the second strongest predictor behind Points Differential.

Passer rating, QBR and simple YPA all have a very high correlation to winning as well. I just prefer a specific ANYPA formula (net passing yards minus 50 yards per interception, all divided by total pass plays), and I believe it has the highest correlation.

 

[xwalker]

I think some of the push back is because your side doesn't define 'Passing Efficiency' clearly enough.

When you use Passer Rating or QBR the facts don't support the theory, but as you explained earlier if you use ANY/A is holds tight.

It is the second strongest predictor behind Points Differential.

I have a formula that uses adjusted yards rushing that correlates between 80 to 92 percent of the time depending on the amount if difference in this "stat".


AYR = (rush yards + turnovers*10000)/10000

The team that has an AYR of greater than the other teams AYR by 0.5 will win about 80 percent of the time. If their AYR exceeds the other team's by 2.5 then they win 92 percent of the time.

 

[Craig]

I dont need numbers to prove what the eye test shows. Steelers throw screen passes to antonio brown constantly that average approximately no gain. That seems insane to the stat sheet fans, but he also gets quick separation a lot when the cb is up on him at the line, so maybe they know what theyre doing.

Likewise running the ball effectively obviously pulls men into the box and opens up the passing game.

This next statement is going to sound like a cop out but: i dont really care a out numbers, anyone that understands the game can see that a successful running game makes a massive difference for the passing game.

 

[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.

It takes a balanced effort. One that we clearly had put together last year... Both aspects of the offense are equally important to success.

 

[AdamJT13]

I have a formula that uses adjusted yards rushing that correlates between 80 to 92 percent of the time depending on the amount if difference in this "stat".


AYR = (rush yards + turnovers*10000)/10000

The team that has an AYR of greater than the other teams AYR by 0.5 will win about 80 percent of the time. If their AYR exceeds the other team's by 2.5 then they win 92 percent of the time.

The fact that you have to quantify the difference in your "stat" to a significant degree in order to show the same correlation as ANY difference in ANYPA, and the fact that 85.5 PERCENT OF YOUR "STAT" IS BASED ON PASS PLAYS, show how laughable your position is.

 

[Bleu Star]

I dont need numbers to prove what the eye test shows.
This next statement is going to sound like a cop out but: i dont really care about numbers, anyone that understands the game can see that a successful running game makes a massive difference for the passing game.

YESSIRRRR... & It doesn't take a pythagorean theorem to come to this conclusion.

 

[Idgit]

YESSIRRRR... & It doesn't take a pythagorean theorem to come to this conclusion.

It's true. No math or higher understanding whatsoever is needed to support the eye test opinion.

 

[Bleu Star]

It's true. No math or higher understanding whatsoever is needed to support the eye test opinion.

Math and statistics obviously have a place in understanding the game but, when you use them to try and prove a point (vice just letting the complete picture be shown and allowing an unbiased light to be cast), I see them as no more valuable than an experienced eye.