Trent Dilfer calls out the run-loving dinosaurs

[Cover 2]

Me either.

I was diggin around some stats not too long ago and I'm pretty sure that it was the 92 or 93 Cowboys who were the most balanced SB winner in the last 15-20 years.

I'm talking balance.....I'll see which one it was.

Looks like it was the 95 team.

494 passes
495 runs

Adam wasn't saying who passes the most, but who passes the most effectively.

 

[Hoofbite]

Adam wasn't saying who passes the most, but who passes the most effectively.

I know what he was talking about. Guess I'm not seeing what you are seeing.

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".

 

[Cover 2]

I know what he was talking about. Guess I'm not seeing what you are seeing.

:laugh2: I must have missed that post.

 

[Hoofbite]

:laugh2: I must have missed that post.

Got lost on the last page at the bottom. I always hate when I have a post end up as one of the last couple posts on a page because it usually doesn't get noticed.

 

[AdamJT13]

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?

No, the 12 teams in the playoffs, over the course of the season, were all more effective passing the ball than their opponents. But three of them were worse than their opponents at rushing the ball, one was even, and one was barely better.

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.

Only four playoff teams finished in the top 10 in yards per carry. And all four conference finalists finished 24th or worse.

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".

For passing, that's almost always true. The team that passes better almost always wins. For rushing, that's not the case. How well you run and stop the run has a very low correlation to winning.

Over the course of the season, the teams that are good at passing and stopping the pass win the majority of their games. The teams that are worse at passing and stopping the pass lose the majority of their games. On the other hand, being good or bad at running and stopping the run doesn't have much of an impact -- the key is how well you pass and stop the pass.

 

[AdamJT13]

According to your list, the more successful teams are those capable of threatening opponents both running and passing. This is precisely what I said.

That's not true, though. A team that is great at passing and lousy at running will almost always be more successful than a team that is good at passing and good or even great at running.

If you're already great at passing, of course you'd rather be good or great at running than to be lousy. But it's not as important as being even better at passing.

 

[AdamJT13]

So our '92 team wouldn't be able to win in today's NFL? I don't buy that for a minute.

Huh? Our 1992 team was great at passing and stopping the pass. That's precisely the formula for winning in the NFL.

 

[Shinywalrus]

That's not true, though. A team that is great at passing and lousy at running will almost always be more successful than a team that is good at passing and good or even great at running.

If you're already great at passing, of course you'd rather be good or great at running than to be lousy. But it's not as important as being even better at passing.

The entire discussion is easy enough to abstract from football, and I think using the "# of run plays vs. # of pass plays" confuses the issue. It's more a question of risk appetites, and both running and passing plays run the gamut of risk aversion. Isn't an end around much more like a passing play in terms of its risk-reward profile than a quick out?

A pass or "high risk play" should have and typically does have a higher expected value in terms of yards, and a higher volatility. This tends to hold true even for teams with inferior passing games. Likewise, a running play has a lower expected value and a lower volatility. On average, teams that have the personnel to execute more "high(er) risk" plays are going to be more successful, all else being equal.

Of course, all else isn't exactly equal. The difficulty is that football is composed of a pretty large number of objective functions that need to be solved to determine optimality. The risk-reward function has a different solution on 3rd and 1 or at the Goal Line. The risk-reward function has a different solution when you're up by 6 with 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter. The risk-reward function has a different solution when your opponent is playing you from the Dime on 1st down.

I think a lot of research, both empirical and purely theoretical, seems to support the idea that efficiency on high volatility plays and the ability to generate low opponent efficiency converting high volatility offensive plays are the primary determinants of success. But there are just too many objective functions that require a successful running game to make the argument that it's not a significant secondary determinant of success.

None of that, however, really speaks to "run and pass mix." The mix is a messy, confounding number that doesn't always reflect the actual mix of risk or the real gameplan. There's no right number because every drive is its own beast with its own objective functions, determined by a huge number of variables.

Ignore the mix. Observe the efficiency.

(Obviously just reiterating some of your points, Adam, selecting your post to reply to was just random)

 

[Doomsday101]

I don't think it is so cut and dry, Cinn without the ability to run the ball is not a playoff team. They are 6th in the league in rushing and 22 in passing. While the Saints are a very good passing team they have also been pretty balanced in their attack however their inablity to stop the run is starting to hurt them and if they can't get that fixed they are in a world of trouble.

I agree being able to pass the ball is important but the run game still plays a big part if it didn't teams would not put 8 and 9 men in the box to stop it. Ramming the ball down a defense throat is a very good way to wear them down as the olineman are able to attack. I do agree if you can't counter the run with a effective passing game you will struggle

 

[ScipioCowboy]

That's not true, though. A team that is great at passing and lousy at running will almost always be more successful than a team that is good at passing and good or even great at running.

If you're already great at passing, of course you'd rather be good or great at running than to be lousy. But it's not as important as being even better at passing.

I wholeheartedly agree passing is more important than running in the modern NFL, and the winning team is usually the one that passes most efficiently. However, four of the top five types of teams on your list possessed running games that were ranked either good or great.

Furthermore, of the 12 teams that control their own playoff destinies, 8 possess running games ranked in the top half of the league in total yards. I'm not contending that a dominant or even a good running game is necessary to be successful.

I'm only saying that a team is more likely to be successful if it can threaten with the pass and the run, if it isn't one dimensional.

 

[Sarge]

It certainly didn't hurt that the key offensive positions on that team were being manned by HOFers(locks) playing in the prime of their careers. It's not hard to figure anything out when you've got Warner, Pace, Faulk, Bruce and Holt on the field.

Care to recall who there RB was?

 

[AdamJT13]

I wholeheartedly agree passing is more important than running in the modern NFL, and the winning team is usually the one that passes most efficiently. However, four of the top five types of teams on your list possessed running games that were ranked either good or great.

So did two of the bottom three.

As I explained earlier, passing is the determinant, not running. The top three on the list all had great passing games, regardless of their running games. The next three all had good passing games, regardless of their running games. The bottom three all had lousy passing games, regardless of their running games.

If you have a great running game and can stop the run, you could be a bad team or a good team -- it depends on how well you can pass and stop the pass. But if you are great at passing and stopping the pass, you'll almost always be a great team, regardless of how well you run and stop the run.

Furthermore, of the 12 teams that control their own playoff destinies, 8 possess running games ranked in the top 15 in total yards.

Total yards isn't necessarily a measure of how well you run it. Teams usually run more because they're winning, they don't win because they run more.

The Colts and Chargers rank 30th and 32nd in yards per carry (and 18th and 26th in YPC allowed). How is that possible, if running and stopping the run is so important?

 

[Doomsday101]

So did two of the bottom three.

As I explained earlier, passing is the determinant, not running. The top three on the list all had great passing games, regardless of their running games. The next three all had good passing games, regardless of their running games. The bottom three all had lousy passing games, regardless of their running games.

If you have a great running game and can stop the run, you could be a bad team or a good team -- it depends on how well you can pass and stop the pass. But if you are great at passing and stopping the pass, you'll almost always be a great team, regardless of how well you run and stop the run.



Total yards isn't necessarily a measure of how well you run it. Teams usually run more because they're winning, they don't win because they run more.

The Colts and Chargers rank 30th and 32nd in yards per carry (and 18th and 26th in YPC allowed). How is that possible, if running and stopping the run is so important?

If New Orleans can't stop the run they are not going any where I don't care how well they pass or stop the pass. It is easy to look at stats but come playoff time if you have any major weakness you will get exploited

 

[T-RO]

What would you guess is the penultimate stat--the one thing that defines winning and losing in the NFL? What is the one thing that if you excel at you are guaranteed to win?

Turnovers? Time of Possession? Red Zone performance? Penalties? Defense?

Pay heed, Cowboy nation for there is one ironclad stat that is now absolute and all-telling:
<Insert Drum Roll....> It is...
Quarterback performance (which of course includes the vital performance of pass blockers and the receivers)

EVERY ONE of the top 12 quarterbacks by YARDAGE play for winning teams.
EVERY ONE of the top 14 quarterbacks by EFFICIENCY play for winning teams.

12 of 12 and 14 of 14! 100% correlation.

By comparison
6 of the top 14 running backs play for losing teams.
3 of the top 12 teams with worst turnover margin still have winning records.
7 of the top 12 most penalized teams have winning records
2 of the worst 12 defensive teams still manage winning records

This is a passing league so you build your offenses and defenses around that reality and you gameplan accordingly. Else you are axiomatically a losing team.

 

[zeroburrito]

i bet your next thread is about this being a passing league.

 

[DallasEast]

I feel a merge ah comin'.

Waitasec. I'm a moderator...

 

[AdamJT13]

Ignore the mix. Observe the efficiency.

That's it exactly. Whether you pass a lot or run a lot, the key is to be able to pass effectively when you do pass.

 

[Doomsday101]

What would you guess is the ultimate stat--the one thing that defines winning and losing in the NFL? What is the one thing that if you excel at you are guaranteed to win?

Turnovers? Time of Possession? Red Zone performance? Penalties? Defense?

Pay heed, Cowboy nation for there is one ironclad stat that is now absolute and all-telling:
Quarterback performance.

EVERY ONE of the top 12 quarterbacks by YARDAGE play for winning teams.
EVERY ONE of the top 14 quarterbacks by EFFICIENCY play for winning teams.

12 of 12 and 14 of 14! 100% correlation.

By comparison
6 of the top 14 running backs play for losing teams.
3 of the top 12 teams with worst turnover margin still have winning records.
7 of the top 12 most penalized teams have winning records
2 of the worst 12 defensive teams still manage winning records

This is a passing league so you build your offenses and defenses around that reality and you gameplan accordingly. Else you are axiomatically a losing team.

Not that cut and dry, Cinn is not a playoff contender without the ability to run. Sorry as important as the pass is the run is still important. Not every team has Manning or Brees but you don't need Manning and Brees if you have the ability to do more than 1 thing. You shut down or slow down the colts passing game they can't win and that is what has happened to them in recent years which is why no matter how great Manning personal numbers are the colts have not been winning SB after SB.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I thought the one iron clad stat for winning and losing was wins and losses.

My bad.

 

[AdamJT13]

If New Orleans can't stop the run they are not going any where I don't care how well they pass or stop the pass. It is easy to look at stats but come playoff time if you have any major weakness you will get exploited

Whether that is true in one specific case, it's almost never true in the NFL.

Look at the Cardinals last postseason as one example. They allowed 5.0 YPC to the Panthers (and rushed for 3.4) but won 33-13 because they were much better at passing and stopping the pass. Then they allowed 5.4 YPC to the Eagles (and rushed for 3.5), but they won 32-25 because they were much better at passing and stopping the pass. In the Super Bowl, the Cardinals allowed 2.2 YPC and lost.

The 1997 Broncos had the worst run defense in the league, and they won the Super Bowl.

It doesn't matter what year or team you look at. In the modern NFL (the past 20 or 30 years, if not more), the team that passes better almost always wins the game, regardless of which team runs it better that day.

Speaking of the Saints specifically, what was the difference between their 38-7 win over the Bucs in Week 11 and their 20-17 loss in Week 16? Run defense? Nope. The Bucs averaged 5.2 YPC in both games. Run offense? Nope. The averaged 5.1 in their win and 5.4 in their loss. The difference was passing (and special teams). Brees was about the same in both games (6.4/6.6 YPA, no interceptions in either game), but the Saints' pass defense was FAR worse in their loss -- they allowed 7.7 yards per pass, compared to 2.8 in their win.