Sturm: Decoding Callahan: Week 9 - Minnesota

[Hoov]

well.... you pointed out the inherent fallacy in your argument

some of the brightest football minds (and i use that term very loosely) on this forum have told me that running has no correlation with winning

Well it didn't this past sunday

 

[visionary]

Well it didn't this past sunday

apparently you are one of those bright football minds

 

[perrykemp]

Man, it feels like Sturm nailed this statement:

"...the people that fear the Cowboys running game the most are the Cowboys themselves, and even the slightest hint of failure chases them off the plan altogether and they scrap it. "

 

[romothesavior]

Callahan is an absolute joke. I was shocked when they brought him in here, but I guess it shouldn't have, given the HC and GM.

 

[HankC]

The Vikings consistently committed a safety to the box and/or a ran safety/corner run blitz; so, the Cowboys could not run the ball effectively. Except for Murray's one good gain, they averaged little over one yard per attempt, including three tackles for loss.

To me, the error was not running too little but trying the run-fake too often (after running so little) when it was obvious they had to pass.

 

[AbeBeta]

Callahan is an absolute joke. I was shocked when they brought him in here, but I guess it shouldn't have, given the HC and GM.

Now that is just ignorant. Callahan is a very well respected coach. Tons of teams would love to have him as their OL coach.

 

[Hoov]

apparently you are one of those bright football minds

well, i can see that the team that ran the ball much better lost. So running the ball better absolutely did not corrrelate with winning. I can also see that the team that passed better won, so passing better did correlate with winning in this game.

cor·re·late

1. 
   have a mutual relationship or connection, in which one thing affects or depends on another.

Im sure You can see it too, you just dont like it for some reason.

 

[visionary]

well, i can see that the team that ran the ball much better lost. So running the ball better absolutely did not corrrelate with winning. I can also see that the team that passed better won, so passing better did correlate with winning in this game.

cor·re·late

1. 
   have a mutual relationship or connection, in which one thing affects or depends on another.

Im sure You can see it too, you just dont like it for some reason.

a

well, i can see that the team that ran the ball much better lost. So running the ball better absolutely did not corrrelate with winning. I can also see that the team that passed better won, so passing better did correlate with winning in this game.

cor·re·late

1. 
   have a mutual relationship or connection, in which one thing affects or depends on another.

Im sure You can see it too, you just dont like it for some reason.

If you had a modicum of understanding of what correlation means, you would know that a negative correlation is still a correlation and does not imply no correlation

Also, on Sunday, the jets played the Saints.... The jets ran the ball better than the saints and the jets won

Care to correlate that ?

 

[Picksix]

His offense had a top ten average ranking in rushing attempts during his four years as Oakland's OC.

Rushing attempts
1998 17th
1999 7th
2000 3rd
2001 12th

I stand corrected.

 

[Hoov]

a


If you had a modicum of understanding of what correlation means, you would know that a negative correlation is still a correlation and does not imply no correlation

Also, on Sunday, the jets played the Saints.... The jets ran the ball better than the saints and the jets won

Care to correlate that ?

True. The jets ran the ball better than the saints. And they won. It also looks like the saints passed better also and lost. They did turn the ball over 3 times too.

If you look at most games you will find a higher positive correlation between the team that passes better and wins than between the team that runs better and wins. The exception is generally found when the team that passes better has several turnovers.

 

[tantrix1969]

The Vikings consistently committed a safety to the box and/or a ran safety/corner run blitz; so, the Cowboys could not run the ball effectively. Except for Murray's one good gain, they averaged little over one yard per attempt, including three tackles for loss.

To me, the error was not running too little but trying the run-fake too often (after running so little) when it was obvious they had to pass.

Murray did run the ball effectively, he had 27,-2,0,and 6 yards(the 6 was on 3rd &1). Now as for the brilliance of deciding to go with Dunbar running up the middle for loss after loss instead of sticking with your main back..it's nearly like they wanted the run to fail so they could say "but see we tried"

 

[visionary]

True. The jets ran the ball better than the saints. And they won. It also looks like the saints passed better also and lost. They did turn the ball over 3 times too.

If you look at most games you will find a higher positive correlation between the team that passes better and wins than between the team that runs better and wins. The exception is generally found when the team that passes better has several turnovers.

A higher correlation is different than no correlation