Trent Dilfer calls out the run-loving dinosaurs

[T-RO]

So the Colts would be the 1st team to win a SB in at least the last 20 years to pass over 60% of the time?

Hoofbite, who cares about the last twenty years. Dinosoars look at the past. I look at the present and the trends.

There will be more passing yardage than EVER this season and the trend just continues to favor the passing teams more every season.

Something close to 70% of the YARDAGE is coming through the air this season through the league.

 

[AdamJT13]

So the Colts would be the 1st team to win a SB in at least the last 20 years to pass over 60% of the time?

How much you pass or run really isn't the key, it's how WELL you pass and stop the pass that almost always determines whether you win. Sometimes, you get a big lead and run a lot. Other times, you exploit a weak pass defense and pass a lot. Either way, how well you pass when you call a pass play is what really matters. How well you run usually doesn't matter.

And most Super Bowl champions end up with a higher run ratio than they really call (in normal situations) because they're good enough to run out the clock in a lot of games.

 

[T-RO]

I can't even count the number of times this weekend that teams couldn't convert 3rd and one and 4th and one.

Running can't even convert plays when they just need one frikking yard.

I'd rather have a 3rd and five and put the ball in Romo's hands.

 

[T-RO]

How much you pass or run really isn't the key, it's how WELL you pass and stop the pass that almost always determines whether you win. Sometimes, you get a big lead and run a lot. Other times, you exploit a weak pass defense and pass a lot. Either way, how well you pass when you call a pass play is what really matters. How well you run usually doesn't matter.

And most Super Bowl champions end up with a higher run ratio than they really call (in normal situations) because they're good enough to run out the clock in a lot of games.

Yup.

Exactly the point I've made in reference to the Saints. They pulled away through 3/4 of the season by being pass heavy and then would run the ball when 3 TDs ahead.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

"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."

Bill Cowher

Excellent point.

The 2006 Colts were an air first team. The only reason they had the # of rushing attempts by percentage was they were sitting on leads in the fourth. I'm going to hop on over to NFL.com and see how many rushing attempts they had in the latter half of the season when they were up.

Quick edit: The 2006 New England game alone has the Colts with 7 rushing attempts and 2 pass attempts in their last two drives to end the game. That right there skews their run/pass ratio towards the run by .4%.

 

[Hoofbite]

Yup.

Exactly the point I've made in reference to the Saints. They pulled away through 3/4 of the season by being pass heavy and then would run the ball when 3 TDs ahead.

So you're saying that the running game that the Saints put on the field when they are killing the clock is better then nearly the rest of the league's running game at any time.

The Saints are top 5 in multiple categories. Scoring, YPG and average.

Pretty unbelievable that all of that is from sitting on leads.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Nope. If you can pass and stop the pass, it barely matters how well you can run or stop the run.

So, in essence, you're asserting that team with a lousy running game and a good passing game is just as likely to win as a team with a good running game and good passing game.

 

[T-RO]

So, in essence, you're asserting that team with a lousy running game and a good passing game is just as likely to win as a team with a good running game and good passing game.

You have been the master of straw man this evening.

You want to excel in every aspect of the game...but for your information...the two Super Bowl teams last year were 22nd and 32nd in rushing. That conveys my feelings.

The running game is a complement. My sentiment is 100% exactly the sentiment of Belichick, Cowher, Dungee, Aikman, Dilfer etc. It sure helps if you can run well, but it isn't mandatory.

 

[T-RO]

Heck even some of the dinos like Parcells and his coaching staff are shedding their ways.

Miami has passed the ball 100 times in the past two games...

Too bad they have a spare quarterback and only one decent receiver.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

You have been the master of straw man this evening.

I suggest you look up the term "straw man" because you clearly haven't the foggiest notion what it means.

If you're going to contend the running game "barely matters," you must also admit the running game, including the efficiency with which a team runs the ball, has very little bearing on the outcome of a game.

You want to excel in every aspect of the game...but for your information...the two Super Bowl teams last year were 22nd and 32nd in rushing. That conveys my feelings.

And the Cardinals were abysmal at the end of last season. They limped into the playoffs because their division was dreadful. According to Chris Collinsworth, they were the worst team in the history of NFL playoff teams.

However, in the 2008 postseason, the Cardinals ranked 5th (out of 12 teams) in total rushing yards and 6th (out of 12) in yards per carry. They actually had one of the better rushing attacks during the playoffs last season.

The running game is a complement. My sentiment is 100% exactly the sentiment of Belichick, Cowher, Dungee, Aikman, Dilfer etc. It sure helps if you can run well, but it isn't mandatory.

Speaking of "straw men," I've never denied this. In fact, I've repeatedly stated the ideal pass/run ratio in the modern NFL seems to be about 55/45.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

So, in essence, you're asserting that team with a lousy running game and a good passing game is just as likely to win as a team with a good running game and good passing game.

Well, a great running game and a mediocre passing game will get you in a bind quickly if your opposition jumps out to a 2 possession lead.

Look at the teams with the best running games this season. Jets are currently in the playoffs, as the #6 seed. Behind them is Tennessee, Carolina, Miami, and New Orleans. Three of the top 5 rushing attacks will be fishing in another week. Take it a step further, and half of the top 10 rushing attacks won't make the playoffs.

Now look at the best passing teams. 8 of the top 10 passing teams are in the playoffs, and it could end up being 9 of the 10.

 

[T-RO]

I was a Cali district finalist in debate years ago. I know exactly what "straw man" means and have been refreshed this evening with your multiple examples.

Your flavor this evening has been argumentum absurdum....latin for taking your opponents argument to the extreme.

You spoke of 80% run or pass advocates...when there aren't any such advocates on this forum. Not one.

Then you proposed that I advocated a "lousy" running game. Again a straw man of the Arg Abs variety.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

I suggest you look up the term "straw man" because you clearly haven't the foggiest notion what it means.

If you're going to contend the running game "barely matters," you must also admit the running game, including the efficiency with which a team runs the ball, has very little bearing on the outcome of a game.

And the Cardinals were abysmal at the end of last season. They limped into the playoffs because their division was dreadful. According to Chris Collinsworth, they were the worst team in the history of NFL playoff teams.

However, in the 2008 postseason, the Cardinals ranked 5th (out of 12 teams) in total rushing yards and 6th (out of 12) in yards per carry. They actually had one of the better rushing attacks during the playoffs last season.

Speaking of "straw men," I've never denied this. In fact, I've repeatedly stated the ideal pass/run ratio in the modern NFL seems to be about 55/45.

Interesting though, that so many of the last few drives of the last couple of Super Bowls have been exclusively passing drives.

 

[Hoofbite]

Well, a great running game and a mediocre passing game will get you in a bind quickly if your opposition jumps out to a 2 possession lead.

Look at the teams with the best running games this season. Jets are currently in the playoffs, as the #6 seed. Behind them is Tennessee, Carolina, Miami, and New Orleans. Three of the top 5 rushing attacks will be fishing in another week. Take it a step further, and half of the top 10 rushing attacks won't make the playoffs.

Now look at the best passing teams. 8 of the top 10 passing teams are in the playoffs, and it could end up being 9 of the 10.

Go back and look at last year and you will see that a good number of the top teams last year were running teams.

There is no single 1-way to win in the NFL.

 

[Hoofbite]

I was a Cali district finalist in debate years ago. I know exactly what "straw man" means and have been refreshed this evening with your multiple examples.

Your flavor this evening has been argumentum absurdum....latin for taking your opponents argument to the extreme.

You spoke of 80% run or pass advocates...when there aren't any such advocates on this forum. Not one.

Then you proposed that I advocated a "lousy" running game. Again a straw man of the Arg Abs variety.

Which is different from what you do in taking an extremely small sample and generalizing to a broad general fallacy?

How many times have you taken a single game and used it as "proof" that passing is the only way to win?

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Go back and look at last year and you will see that a good number of the top teams last year were running teams.

There is no single 1-way to win in the NFL.

2007 also. Yet, the 2007 Super Bowl's winning drive was again an all air affair. 2006 the Bears were doomed because they couldn't keep up with Manning's air raid.

2009 might be an abberation, but you can get by fairly well with a mediocre defense if you can score in bunches. See 2007 Cowboys.

 

[AdamJT13]

So, in essence, you're asserting that team with a lousy running game and a good passing game is just as likely to win as a team with a good running game and good passing game.

I didn't say that. In reality, a team with a good passing game will be only marginally better with a good running game than they would be with a lousy running game. And a team with a great passing game and a lousy running game will win more than a team with a good passing game and a great running game.

If the ability to run or pass could be classified as ONLY "great," good" or "lousy," these would be the rankings for their levels of success (assuming all of their defenses were equal) --

1. Great pass, great run
2. Great pass, good run
3. Great pass, lousy run
4. Good pass, great run
5. Good pass, good run
6. Good pass, lousy run
7. Lousy pass, great run
8. Lousy pass, good run
9. Lousy pass, lousy run

And most likely, there's a gap between Nos. 3 and 4 and between Nos. 6 and 7.

The same would be true for defenses. If you can stop the pass very well, you're better off, no matter how well you can stop the run.

 

[AdamJT13]

Go back and look at last year and you will see that a good number of the top teams last year were running teams.

Every playoff team last year was more effective passing the ball than their opponent, but three were worse running the ball than their opponent, one was even with their opponent and one was barely better. All four conference finalists were 24th or worse in yards per carry.

It's not really up for debate, because every statistical analysis has shown than passing effectively and stopping the pass has a much higher correlation to winning than running well and stopping the run.

 

[Hoofbite]

Every playoff team last year was more effective passing the ball than their opponent, but three were worse running the ball than their opponent, one was even with their opponent and one was barely better. All four conference finalists were 24th or worse in yards per carry.

It's not really up for debate, because every statistical analysis has shown than passing effectively and stopping the pass has a much higher correlation to winning than running well and stopping the run.

Its late but I have no idea what this statistical condition means. They were more effective than their collective opponents, or just the winners of the playoff games were more effective than the losers?

I was just saying that a good majority of the playoff teams last year were in the top 10 in rushing over the course of the entire season.

Looking at "effectiveness" doesn't say anything about where a team sits in relation to the rest of the league. On a game by game basis its an excellent barometer but it says nothing about where a team ranks.

All it says is that 'Team A' had a better day passing than 'Team B' which seems like just another way of saying that 'Team A' had a better day of stopping the pass than did 'Team B'. Looks an awful lot like the same stat dressed up in a different context.

Really, effectiveness appears pretty non-descriptive. If Jason Campbell plays the game of his life and Romo were to stink up the joint, Jason Campbell wins but that doesn't mean that the Commanders have a better passing game than the Cowboys.

As a general rule, effectiveness works on a game-by-game basis but really says nothing about how good either team is at passing or stopping the pass.

Kind of silly but it sounds a lot like "whichever team plays better wins".

 

[Sarge]

It's a passing league and the Rams were the first to figure it out.