Sturm concedes: passing almost the exclusive way to win

[ElGatoGrande]

^^^ THIS^^^^

of all the stupid agendas I've seen on this board this "run vs pass" tirade makes the least sense.

 

[T-RO]

The league as a whole has become about the pass. But look at the last few champions.

Pitt, Indy, NE, NYG all ran the ball very well. I know that Peyton and Brady have been the best players on their offenses, but both of those teams had consistent success running the ball.

You can't just throw, throw, throw and win in the playoffs. If that were the case, Peyton and Brees would be in the Super Bowl every year. You MUST be able to run the ball.

I have been through this 100 times. NO THEY DIDN'T...and NO THEY DON'T!

-Pittsburgh was 22nd in rushing when they won the Superbowl and averaged 2 yards a carry in the Super Bowl victory.

-The Pats are a PASSING Team with mediocre runners.

-The Colts are a PASSING Team with very little pass production....32nd this year---dead last.

-The Cards were dead LAST in running the ball last season yet almost won it all.

-The Chargers can't run a lick....31st this year, yet a favorite for the AFC Super Bowl.

-The Eagles pass more than anyone and they have the winningest record in the NFC over the past decade.

 

[Cover 2]

The league as a whole has become about the pass. But look at the last few champions.

Pitt, Indy, NE, NYG all ran the ball very well. I know that Peyton and Brady have been the best players on their offenses, but both of those teams had consistent success running the ball.

You can't just throw, throw, throw and win in the playoffs. If that were the case, Peyton and Brees would be in the Super Bowl every year. You MUST be able to run the ball.

The QB is only half of the equation. Pass defense is the other.

 

[Future]

I have been through this 100 times. NO THEY DIDN'T...and NO THEY DON'T!

-Pittsburgh was 22nd in rushing when they won the Superbowl and averaged 2 yards a carry in the Super Bowl victory.

-The Pats are a PASSING Team with mediocre runners.

-The Colts are a PASSING Team with very little pass production....near the bottom at running the ball.

-The Cards were dead LAST in running the ball last season yet almost won it all.

-The Chargers can't run a lick.

-The Eagles pass more than anyone and they have the winningest record in the NFC over the past decade.

I only mentioned Super Bowl winners...there is a reason teams like the Saints, Eagles, and Cards consistently lose in the playoffs. But all the teams I mentioned ran the ball well even if they were pass-based offenses the year they won the Super Bowl. I don't care what the numbers look like. When Pitt. beat Seattle, they were a power running football team.

I said it earlier, running the football isn't all necessarily about numbers. It is about setting tone. You can't measure that, but if you pay attention, you know it happens.

 

[T-RO]

I'm not arguing the facts.

Clearly you and the dinos that argue with me aren't arguing the facts or paying any attention to them.

You are hold onto dated mantras, traditions and notions you grew up with.

But saying that a passing game is more important than a run game is asinine imo.

I guess Bill Cowher is assanine?
"The game has changed, the rules have changed," he said. "I think right now, I hate to say this, but the running game is a complement. It's not the foundation that it once was. You look at the last three AFC teams that were in the Super Bowl, that's Pittsburgh, New England and Indianapolis. They're all passing teams. The running game is a complement."

Coach Bill Cowher



Bill Cowher completely and emphatically disagrees with you.

 

[Future]

Clearly you and the dinos that argue with me aren't arguing the facts or paying any attention to them.

You are hold onto dated mantras, traditions and notions you grew up with.



I guess Bill Cowher is assanine?
"The game has changed, the rules have changed," he said. "I think right now, I hate to say this, but the running game is a complement. It's not the foundation that it once was. You look at the last three AFC teams that were in the Super Bowl, that's Pittsburgh, New England and Indianapolis. They're all passing teams. The running game is a complement."

Coach Bill Cowher



Bill Cowher completely and emphatically disagrees with you.

I know what the mediots think, you've said it ten times. That doesn't mean I'm going to change my opinion.

It also doesn't mean I'm a dino...I'm 21 :laugh2:

 

[T-RO]

C-Lab: Leader of the pack in the "I-have-zero-substance-but-I know-how-to-find-an-internet-image crowd"

 

[Future]

C-Lab: Leader of the pack in the "I-have-zero-substance-but-I know-how-to-find-an-internet-image crowd"

For what it's worth...statistics and trends are not the same.

 

[T-RO]

It also doesn't mean I'm a dino...I'm 21 :laugh2:

dinos come in all ages. You are still old enough to have grown up on that football mantra about running the ball.

Maybe in two years teams that use the Wildcat will dominate, or rules will tilt against the passing game.

You have to stay agile and adapt.

By the way since when are Super Bowl coaches "mediots"?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

:laugh2:

You actually put my name in there? I'm honored.

I'm not even arguing your point, though. Most people aren't. You're trying to pick fights that aren't there -- hence the tilting at windmills.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Sturm had his panties in a wad about the Cowboys passing too much several times this season.

He was mad about passing the ball ineffectively, in large part because we were passing too much.

Winning the passing game battle wins football games in the NFL roughly 80% of the time statistically (not exclusively, but it's an overwhelming percentage), but the running game is *often* an important supplement to the passing game.

What can the running game do for the passing game? It can balance out the offense making the times you pass more likely to be effective. It can increase the odds of making big pass plays. And it can run the clock out when you're ahead in the second half.

Those first two factors are nice to have if you have a below par QB or your star QB isn't playing that well. We've seen us struggle with that a bit in the past with Garrett, when Romo wasn't exactly on or maybe we needed some running to set up a big play with either a play action or a boot leg.

If you have a great running game, but no QB, you ain't going to win much. St. Louis is an example of that. OTOH, if you have a very average QB and a great running game, now the job of the QB becomes much easier and all of the sudden they are this very good QB, I think that applied to Vince Young this year (and it also shows how bad Kerry Collins was this year).

IIRC, Sturm's biggest problem is that we went to the shotgun on non-passing downs way too much this year and the stats showed we didn't play effectively from it. I agree with him on that as well.

And I agree on the importance of winning by using the pass, but I don't quite agree that it's almost 'exclusively' the reason why team's win. Winning the passing game battle equates to wins about 80% of the time is big odds, but I don't think it's anywhere near being 'exclusive.'




YAKUZA

 

[T-RO]

For what it's worth...statistics and trends are not the same.

If they were the same thing I would have used one word. I used two words because they are two things.

 

[Future]

dinos come in all ages. You are still old enough to have grown up on that football mantra about running the ball.

Maybe in two years teams that use the Wildcat will dominate, or rules will tilt against the passing game.

You have to stay agile and adapt.

By the way since when are Super Bowl coaches "mediots"?

I hate the wildcat. That is a trend. Running the football to win Super Bowls, is science.

 

[T-RO]

He was mad about passing the ball ineffectively, in large part because we were passing too much.

Winning the passing game battle wins football games in the NFL roughly 80% of the time statistically (not exclusively, but it's an overwhelming percentage), but the running game is *often* an important supplement to the passing game.

What can the running game do for the passing game? It can balance out the offense making the times you pass more likely to be effective. It can increase the odds of making big pass plays. And it can run the clock out when you're ahead in the second half.

Those first two factors are nice to have if you have a below par QB or your star QB isn't playing that well. We've seen us struggle with that a bit in the past with Garrett, when Romo wasn't exactly on or maybe we needed some running to set up a big play with either a play action or a boot leg.

If you have a great running game, but no QB, you ain't going to win much. St. Louis is an example of that. OTOH, if you have a very average QB and a great running game, now the job of the QB becomes much easier and all of the sudden they are this very good QB, I think that applied to Vince Young this year (and it also shows how bad Kerry Collins was this year).

IIRC, Sturm's biggest problem is that we went to the shotgun on non-passing downs way too much this year and the stats showed we didn't play effectively from it. I agree with him on that as well.

And I agree on the importance of winning by using the pass, but I don't quite agree that it's almost 'exclusively' the reason why team's win. Winning the passing game battle equates to wins about 80% of the time is big odds, but I don't think it's anywhere near being 'exclusive.'

YAKUZA

Superb post. I agree 100% about it being 80% about the passing game. Obviously in football you want to do everything well. Adam and I have documented, however, how it overwhelmingly comes down to passing efficiency and productity.

 

[Cover 2]

Stopping the pass is just as important as passing. Whoever passes more efficiently usually wins. So if one team has a quarterback that has an average game based off passing efficiency, they can still win if their defense shuts the other team down.

 

[Cover 2]

I hate the wildcat. That is a trend. Running the football to win Super Bowls, is science.

In the past yes. But the game is evolving. There is no correlation between rushing yards and winning. Look at the Colts and Chargers ypc.

 

[T-RO]

Stopping the pass is just as important as passing. Whoever passes more efficiently usually wins. So if one team has a quarterback that has an average game based off passing efficiency, they can still win if their defense shuts the other team down.

I tend to agree but what's been interesting this year is that the top 12 quarterbacks all led their teams to winning records------irrespective of how their defenses performed. 12 out of 12 is stout. The pass defenses are going to be crucial now that it's good quarterback versus good quarterback in all but one playoff game.

One of the reasons I feel good about the Cowboys is that we both rush the passer well and we have four good cover guys with speed (Newman, Jenkins, Scandrick and Sensabaugh)

 

[Future]

In the past yes. But the game is evolving. There is no correlation between rushing yards and winning. Look at the Colts and Chargers ypc.

But they have talented enough backs that you have to game plan for the run. If you let them run, they will kill you with the pass. So I still think that their run games allow them success through the air.

 

[Cover 2]

I tend to agree but what's been interesting this year is that the top 12 quarterbacks all led their teams to winning records------irrespective of how their defenses performed. 12 out of 12 is stout. The pass defenses are going to be crucial now that it's good quarterback versus good quarterback in all but one playoff game.

One of the reasons I feel good about the Cowboys is that we both rush the passer well and we have four good cover guys with speed (Newman, Jenkins, Scandrick and Sensabaugh)

That's because the top 12 qb's passed better than their opponents. If their opponents' defense would have stifled one of those quarterbacks to the point that the other team passed more efficiently, then one of those top 12 qb's would have lost.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Superb post. I agree 100% about it being 80% about the passing game. Obviously in football you want to do everything well. Adam and I have documented, however, how it overwhelmingly comes down to passing efficiency and productity.

My issue is the flawed concept that you don't 'run the ball to set up the pass.'

Do you have to do it? Certainly not.

Does just plain running the ball set up the pass? No.

Can a team 'run the ball to set up the pass?' Absolutely. Happens quite a bit.

But there's a risk with that. If you try to run the ball and get stuffed, you can get some 3 and outs and possibly get a hole very quickly.

The problem we have had with Garrett on occasion is the Cowboys run the ball quite effectively (4.8 ypc) and he doesn't want to use that *supplement* to help the passing game.

The Chargers had the worst running offense in the league (3.3 ypc) and Norv still managed to run the ball 55% of the time. Garrett's offense ran the ball at 4.8 ypc and we actually ran the ball less percentage of the time (54%). I believe if the Chargers ran the ball as effectively as the Cowboys did, Norv would get the balance more at 50/50 because he knows how the running game can help the passing game.

Garrett's been pretty good lately, but in the past, this has been the issue with him as the O-Coordinator.





YAKUZA