The defense will be better with Zeke

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But Witten is Romo's guy. You think he's going to throw it to some rookie wide out and not to Witten?

Witten is 35. If you want to hold onto that until after the wheels fall off then I cannot stop you but it's poor vision in my eyes.

 

[JoeKing]

Really, I thought you knew more about football than just stats.

So a team decides to focus on taking away the run, now you have a better passing day. A team decides to focus on stopping the pass, guess what happens.

I think people get irked when you say things like "What I have stated repeatedly is that the success of the running game, generally speaking, has very little effect on whether you win or lose. Whatever effects the running game has on the passing game can be had no matter how well or how poorly you run the ball. All of that is borne out by the facts."

The running game does have a large effect. You just can't measure it or find it in a stat that correlates directly to winning so you dismiss it.

If the running game really has such a large effect in the outcome of games then you'd think the top RB for each season for the last decade would have at least one Super Bowl trophy but none of them do. Running game doesn't win championships anymore. Defense wins championships.

2015 Adrian Peterson
2014 Demarco Murray
2013 LeSean McCoy
2012 Adrian Peterson
2011 Maurice Jones-Drew
2010 Adrian Foster
2009 Chris Johnson
2008 Adrian Peterson
2007 LaDainian Tomlinson
2006 LaDainian Tomlinson
2005 Shaun Alexander

Not a single championship ring between them. It use to happen back when Emmitt played but not anymore.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The greatest show on turf featured a HOF back in Faulk who put up 2740 rushing yards and 25 rushing TD's during the Rams back to back SB seasons. He also accounted for 13 receiving TD's those 2 seasons. Faulk being such a threat in the running game helped open up the passing game and made the Rams nearly impossible to defend with Warner who was on fire. Proehl and Az-Hakim were products of Kurt Warner and his ability to find receivers.

They were perfect compliments to Bruce and Holt in that system. When you have a big threat at RB with a system in place to take advantage of the talent you have on offense along with a QB who's lighting it up it's a recipe for explosiveness. Twill isn't consistent but he does show up in big games, is clutch and does score TD's. He does have to start being more consistent or eventually the Cowboys will look to replace him. They obviously still have confidence in him because they didn't draft a receiver.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ram/1999_splits.htm

Further, the Rams ran the ball 60% more often in the 4th quarter than the other quarters. This lends credence to Adam's argument that you are mistaking cause and effect.

 

[BlindFaith]

What are you talking about? Newton quantified the gravitational constant and the squared topology centuries ago and Einstein's gravitational mechanics have been empirically proven time and again.

We know why blackholes exist. Our understanding of quantum forces explain with a high sigma what goes on. That is a far cry from repeating your take without basis over and over again.

Newton’s law had a flaw: It did not explain how one thing could act on another instantly, across any distance, with nothing in between. Nobody liked this “action at a distance,” including Newton.

Einstein’s theory of gravity contains a flaw, or maybe just a puzzle. Gravity doesn’t fit in with the universe’s other three fundamental forces: the electromagnetic, the weak, and the strong. The other three can all be described by quantum mechanics, which explains the three forces as fields created and carried by waves which are also particles. To date, gravitational waves remain undetected and gravitational particles called gravitons are probably undetectable. So at bottom this force that’s so familiar, whose quantification you read every day on your bathroom scales, is—what?

So what’s the matter with gravity? It may or may not be related to dark energy and it doesn’t fit in with the other forces. If it’s not a particle or a wave, then what else it might be is unclear. “And that’s where it sits now,” Turner says. “But wouldn’t you rather have no answer than the wrong answer?”

 

[AdamJT13]

Really, I thought you knew more about football than just stats.

So a team decides to focus on taking away the run, now you have a better passing day. A team decides to focus on stopping the pass, guess what happens.

Um, that exactly proves my point, if it happens that way.

Let's assume the opponent decides to focus on taking away the run -- the offense has poor rushing stats, but it has a better passing day, as you said. And we know that when a team has a better passing day, it has a much better chance of winning. Thus, having poor rushing stats does not prevent the team from having a better chance of winning, because it passed better. And for the opponent, focusing on taking away the run and stopping the run did not help it stop the pass or increase its chances of winning.

Now let's assume that the opponent decides to focus on stopping the pass. As you say, the offense then has a better rushing day but a worse passing day. And we know that when a team has a worse passing day, it has much less chance of winning. Thus, having great rushing stats did not help the team pass better or increase its chances of winning. And for the opponent, focusing on taking away the pass at the expense of allowing the opponent to run better greatly increased its chances of winning.

So, by your own words, a defense that focuses on shutting down the run increases its chances of losing, while a defense that focuses on shutting down the pass and doesn't worry about allowing the opponent to run the ball increases its chances of winning.

Let me guess, you want to change your mind about what you said?

 

[KJJ]

You were saying Witten precludes another receiver getting touches. You've surrendered that argument and moved the goalposts. Other than claiming stats without correlation and waving your hands you have no basis for your claims of the running game's effectiveness.

Just the same with their confidence in TWill. I like how you gloss over him disappearing for half a season two years in a row. Clutch players show up.

I love how you gloss over all of the facts that Adam has presented over the years and just repeat yourself.

I never mentioned Witten you have me confused with someone else. Adam and his data are so inside your head you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[KJJ]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ram/1999_splits.htm

Further, the Rams ran the ball 60% more often in the 4th quarter than the other quarters. This lends credence to Adam's argument that you are mistaking cause and effect.

Nothing lends credence to his argument you're just one of his lapdogs he has on a leash. lol

 

[AdamJT13]

So you are using only STATS to determine if a Team is effective at running the ball and that's crazy.

If the EFFECT of one TEAM having a Good running CAUSES the other team to GAMPLAN differently then that is obviously a DIRECT effect and will have major implications on the game.

That's the whole point! You don't have to have good running stats to gain whatever advantages can be gained from the running game. Better rushing stats don't help you pass better to any significant degree. Better rushing stats don't help you win games to any significant degree. You can be mediocre or even poor at running the ball in general -- and mediocre or poor at stopping the run -- and still win games and Super Bowls. It barely even matters if you average 3.0 yards per carry or 5.0 yards per carry. What matters is your PASSING efficiency and stopping the pass -- that's what wins games in the NFL.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Newton’s law had a flaw: It did not explain how one thing could act on another instantly, across any distance, with nothing in between. Nobody liked this “action at a distance,” including Newton.

Einstein’s theory of gravity contains a flaw, or maybe just a puzzle. Gravity doesn’t fit in with the universe’s other three fundamental forces: the electromagnetic, the weak, and the strong. The other three can all be described by quantum mechanics, which explains the three forces as fields created and carried by waves which are also particles. To date, gravitational waves remain undetected and gravitational particles called gravitons are probably undetectable. So at bottom this force that’s so familiar, whose quantification you read every day on your bathroom scales, is—what?

So what’s the matter with gravity? It may or may not be related to dark energy and it doesn’t fit in with the other forces. If it’s not a particle or a wave, then what else it might be is unclear. “And that’s where it sits now,” Turner says. “But wouldn’t you rather have no answer than the wrong answer?”

Gravitational waves were detected this year just as Einstein predicted.

http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-waves-how-ligo-forged-the-path-to-victory-1.19382

He described it as the curvature of space time which is in all places at all times. This explains the action at a distance and when mass is converted from energy in a location the gravity well propagates at the speed of light.

Even before they were discovered there was a testable hypothesis. You willfully ignore the data you're given. Your name is appropriate.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nothing lends credence to his argument you're just one of his lapdogs he has on a leash. lol

Nice ad hominem. Reads like a white flag to me.

 

[KJJ]

Nice ad hominem. Reads like a white flag to me.

Reads like the white flag you're waving! lol

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never mentioned Witten you have me confused with someone else. Adam and his data are so inside your head you don't know what you're talking about.

It was BlindFaith's argument and the post you quoted was directed to him about that. Youre still moving the goalposts as you were just continuing the argument we were having. Try and keep up.

 

[AdamJT13]

There are tons of thing that are significant to the outcome of a football game that there are no stats for.

You thing Lawrence Taylors ability to Intimidate plays a factor in the game?
Do you think the THREAT of a Great Running attack has an effect on the game?

There are stats for those. Remember, everything that happens in a football game is measurable.

If Taylor's "ability to intimidate" is a noticeable factor, then it would show up in the stats. For example, the opponent should be worse at passing when he is on the field or when he rushes the passer. If that's NOT the case, and the opponent actually passes better when LT is on the field, then how big of a factor is his "ability to intimidate"? If the stats are the same whether he is on the field or not, how significant is that factor?

It's the same with a "threat of a great running attack." When there is a "threat of a great running attack," there should be a noticeable difference on the field. Maybe the offense runs better. Maybe it passes better. Maybe both. Maybe neither. All you have to do is identify which plays or which games included a "threat of a great running attack," see what happens on those plays, and -- VOILA! -- you have stats. It's not complicated.

The problem is, nobody will identify what a "threat of a great running attack" is, and certainly not before the fact. They want to wait to see what happens so they can retroactively claim that it had an impact. There is no way to independently identify a "threat of a great running attack" and have it correlate to success in passing or winning, because that correlation doesn't actually exist.

 

[KJJ]

It was BlindFaith's argument and the post you quoted was directed to him about that. Youre still moving the goalposts as you were just continuing the argument we were having. Try and keep up.

Let's see the post you're referring to where I mentioned Witten.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The problem is, nobody will identify what a "threat of a great running attack" is, and certainly not before the fact. They want to wait to see what happens so they can retroactively claim that it had an impact. There is no way to independently identify a "threat of a great running attack" and have it correlate to success in passing or winning, because that correlation doesn't actually exist.

Yep, whatever "threat of a great running attack" is suppose to mean...

It's like "game face"...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Let's see the post you're referring to where I mentioned Witten.

Who was the TE on those teams? While Witten is here he will get the bulk of the looks that "could" go to a RB, provided Garrett and Linehan were creative enough to do it.

 

[AdamJT13]

Well it's just like a closer in Baseball. Guess their stats are a luxury too huh?

It's not like a closer at all. The closer's stats are exclusively for end-of-game situations, usually save situations (ie., close games).

Using your baseball analogy, it's like saying teams should just user their closer in every game, because they have a much higher winning percentage when their closer pitches than when he doesn't. Never mind that the reason he is pitching is because they are already winning.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't quote BlindFaith I haven't read a single post of his in this thread.

No, you quoted my response to that post. That was my point. Try and keep up.

 

[CCBoy]

Let's just say, if Ezekiel Elliott's total reaches 2,000 in total yards...this fan will be completely excited about the Dallas Cowboys team.

 

[KJJ]

It was BlindFaith's argument and the post you quoted was directed to him about that. Youre still moving the goalposts as you were just continuing the argument we were having. Try and keep up.

I have no idea what you're talking about show me my post where I mentioned Witten.