Trent Dilfer calls out the run-loving dinosaurs

[T-RO]

I feel a merge ah comin'.

Waitasec. I'm a moderator...

I am reminded of my state as a lowly poster. But I do have to throw one of my two protest flags.

Though related, that statistical trendline deserved a separate thread. I guess I should have waited a few days.

 

[DallasEast]

I am reminded of my state as a lowly poster. But I do have to throw one of my two protest flags.

Though related, that statistical trendline deserved a separate thread.

The best thing about message forums is that practically anyone's opinion is as valid as the next person's.

 

[Doomsday101]

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.

Last year in the post season the Cards were able to run the ball with Hightower and James, there are times you need the ability to run the ball if you can't you can get into trouble. No one wants 2nd and 2 and 3rd 1 and be forced to pass the ball because you can't run it. There have been many top passing team who have failed to reach the SB because they can't run the ball worth a damn and when you get to post season you don't get the easy teams any longer you are dealing with the better teams if you are one dimensional you tend to get beat. Philly has a hell of a passing game but Reid gets away from running and it has cost them.

I agree of the importance of the passing game but the interference rules and the 5 yard bump rule have been in place for a long time now only big rule changes have taken place with the protection of the QB and under pretty much the same rules we see today the 90's Cowboys were dominate because we could kill any defense by running or throwing. If you stacked the line to stop Emmitt fine we would throw the ball if you played more coverage Smith would kill defenses. Great teams have the ability to take advantage of any weakness a defense has teams who are one dimensional often get into trouble when that one phase is controlled by the other team.

 

[Shinywalrus]

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.

It's also important to recall that, if pass offense and the Quarterback are important, the ability to counteract the opposing pass offense and Quarterback is also important.

Well, that and the fact that football is an inherently unstable sport. Baseball and basketball can be balanced by the fact that they play Best of 7 Series - but football plays one game.

I'm not so sure, if the NFL played a best-of-7 Super Bowl, and injuries weren't an issue, that the Colts and Patriots would not have alternated the last 5 or 6 Super Bowls.

 

[AdamJT13]

Not that cut and dry, Cinn is not a playoff contender without the ability to run.

They would be even less of a contender if they were worse at passing and stopping the pass, regardless of how well they run or stop the run.

In the Bengals' games, the team that has averaged more yards per rush has won 47 percent of the time (7-8). The team that has averaged more yards per pass has won 80 percent of the time (12-3). Only twice has the winning team had a higher rushing average and lower passing average. One of those was decided on a TD pass with 14 seconds left, and the other went into overtime. Seven times the winning team had a higher passing average and a lower rushing average.

So, even with a team like the Bengals (who are average at passing and near the top at stopping the pass), it's the passing game that determines who wins. The same is even true with the Titans, the best rushing team in the NFL. In their games, the team with more yards per rush is 6-9. The team with more yards per pass is 14-1.

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.

If you shut down any team's passing game, they almost never win. That's because passing is what is most important. If you pass better than your opponent, you'll almost always win, as shown in the numbers above.

 

[Doomsday101]

They would be even less of a contender if they were worse at passing and stopping the pass, regardless of how well they run or stop the run.

In the Bengals' games, the team that has averaged more yards per rush has won 47 percent of the time (7-8). The team that has averaged more yards per pass has won 80 percent of the time (12-3). Only twice has the winning team had a higher rushing average and lower passing average. One of those was decided on a TD pass with 14 seconds left, and the other went into overtime. Seven times the winning team had a higher passing average and a lower rushing average.

So, even with a team like the Bengals (who are average at passing and near the top at stopping the pass), it's the passing game that determines who wins. The same is even true with the Titans, the best rushing team in the NFL. In their games, the team with more yards per rush is 6-9. The team with more yards per pass is 14-1.




If you shut down any team's passing game, they almost never win. That's because passing is what is most important. If you pass better than your opponent, you'll almost always win, as shown in the numbers above.

I agree it is important I also think being able to run the ball gives you a better chance of controlling the game. As great as the colts passing is they have 1 SB yet are the top 2 to 3 teams year in and year out. It takes more than just being able to pass the ball in passing so if the title went to the best passing team colts would have more than 1. Ravens won the SB with good passing, good running and great defense not every team is the same

 

[T-RO]

I look at the Cowboys in the shotgun with any of their backs lined up beside Romo

And I
Do Not See

One-dimensional.

The threat of the pass is the most dangerous in the game. You want to create air. Stretch defenses horizontally and vertically. The Cowboys have run with tremendous success on those draws but you can also get running backs in space via a screen play or pass in the flat.

That said I also like Romo over center with the play-action.

I say continually threaten defenses and don't have give up plays where there is no speed on the field.

 

[Doomsday101]

AdamJT13, I do agree with what you said earlier and that is you must have an effective passing game. I don't think you need to lead the league in passing, you can be a very good running team with a very effective passing game where the QB is only getting 250 or less throwing the ball and win big games.

 

[T-RO]

I agree it is important I also think being able to run the ball gives you a better chance of controlling the game.

That's a big myth. You control the ball by converting first downs.

The top passers are now averaging over 8 yards per attempt (not per completion mind you but every single time they go back to pass). 8 yards per play is going to mean a LOT of first downs and that's how you control the ball and the game.

 

[T-RO]

AdamJT13, I do agree with what you said earlier and that is you must have an effective passing game. I don't think you need to lead the league in passing, you can be a very good running team with a very effective passing game where the QB is only getting 250 or less throwing the ball and win big games.

You are trying to wiggle off the hook...but you are wrong.

The top 12 teams by PASSING YARDAGE this season are ALL above .500.

The teams that aren't getting 250+ yard passing days are almost all losing.

 

[Doomsday101]

I look at the Cowboys in the shotgun with any of their backs lined up beside Romo

And I
Do Not See

One-dimensional.

The threat of the pass is the most dangerous in the game. You want to create air. Stretch defenses horizontally and vertically. The Cowboys have run with tremendous success on those draws but you can also get running backs in space via a screen play or pass in the flat.

That said I also like Romo over center with the play-action.

I say continually threaten defenses and don't have give up plays where there is no speed on the field.

True but the running game is still playing a role, defense can't just pin their ears back and come after him they have to slow down because of the run. Play action means nothing if you can't run the defense are not stupid they know that if you can't run the ball that play action only works aginst you because you wasted a few points of a second faking a meaningless handoff in the meantime the defense never slowed down as they hit the QB.

I think there is some misunderstanding because I do think the pass is very important I also think the run still plays a big part if it didn't teams would never put 8 and 9 in the box to stop it. Why would you waste defenders aginst the run if the run had no bearing on the game?

 

[Doomsday101]

You are trying to wiggle off the hook...but you are wrong.

The top 12 teams by PASSING YARDAGE this season are ALL above .500.

The teams that aren't getting 250+ yard passing days are almost all losing.

I'm not trying to wiggle off the hook. I think the pass is important but why play action? you play action to get the defense to bite up on the run to freeze LB and safety if the run did not mean anything they would not bother to try and stop it. If I can run the ball down your throat and you can't stop it you are just as likely to lose that game.

 

[Vtwin]

They would be even less of a contender if they were worse at passing and stopping the pass, regardless of how well they run or stop the run.

In the Bengals' games, the team that has averaged more yards per rush has won 47 percent of the time (7-8). The team that has averaged more yards per pass has won 80 percent of the time (12-3). Only twice has the winning team had a higher rushing average and lower passing average. One of those was decided on a TD pass with 14 seconds left, and the other went into overtime. Seven times the winning team had a higher passing average and a lower rushing average.

So, even with a team like the Bengals (who are average at passing and near the top at stopping the pass), it's the passing game that determines who wins. The same is even true with the Titans, the best rushing team in the NFL. In their games, the team with more yards per rush is 6-9. The team with more yards per pass is 14-1.




If you shut down any team's passing game, they almost never win. That's because passing is what is most important. If you pass better than your opponent, you'll almost always win, as shown in the numbers above.

Yet another case where the stats don't really tell the whole story.

Would you agree that the ability to run effectively is directly responsible for for the ability to pass effectively?

Is it not possible that the losers in your stats had to decide where to focus their attention and focused it on stopping the run thus making it easier to put up the passing stats?

You make it sound like probowlers at QB and receiver and scrubs at running back will beat a balanced team most of the time.

I don't think that is true.

Do you think that we should not keep the three quality running backs we have on our roster? And why?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

So did two of the bottom three.

This has no bearing on my point, which has remained constant throughout our spirited exchange: "A team is more likely to be successful if it can threaten with both run and pass, if it can avoid being one dimensional."

The three bottom teams on your list were "lousy" passing teams; consequently, they were one dimensional, and incapable of threatening with both run and pass.

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?

When a team chooses to run the ball does not detract from my point. If anything, it demonstrates the importance of the rushing game as a means of running out the clock and preserving a win. If your assertion about the conditions under which teams run is correct, a team with a decent running game is more likely to maintain its lead.

Your point about the Colts and Chargers would only have been valid (in the context of my point) if I had said, "Teams cannot be successful unless they have decent running games."

Obviously, I didn't say this. Rather, I asserted that teams are more likely to be successful if they can threaten with both run and pass. And, thus far, of the 12 teams who control their own playoff destinies, 8 have running games ranked in the top half of the league.

I'm dealing solely in what is likely, not what is absolute.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm dealing solely in probabilities here.

So is he.

14:1 and 13:2 are pretty compelling as future predictors.

 

[T-RO]

Would you agree that the ability to run effectively is directly responsible for for the ability to pass effectively?

NFL teams in no way need to run effectively to pass effecively... Again take your two Super Bowl teams last year. 22nd and 32nd in rushing...yet they passed quite well.

The Steelers, Pats, Cards, Cowboys, Saints and others have had prolific passing offenses without any Emmitt Smith type running backs. Indeed they almost all employ a running-back-by-committee approach.

 

[T-RO]

If I can run the ball down your throat and you can't stop it you are just as likely to lose that game.

I don't think so....and I can point to countless examples from this season. We had almost 250 yards rushing on the G-men in our first game and lost. The Fins ran the ball down the Colts throats in an early-season MNF game---and lost. There are countless examples from this season.

Good running games average around 4 to 5 yards per carry. It is difficult to sustain a long drive even if you are doing this. One holding penalty and you are dead.

Compare that to 8 yards per pass play.

 

[AdamJT13]

Last year in the post season the Cards were able to run the ball with Hightower and James

They averaged 3.3 yards per rush in the postseason -- 3.1 in their wild-card game, 3.4 in their divisional game, 3.5 in the NFC title game and 2.8 in the Super Bowl.

 

[AdamJT13]

Would you agree that the ability to run effectively is directly responsible for for the ability to pass effectively?

No. There's very little, if any, correlation.

Is it not possible that the losers in your stats had to decide where to focus their attention and focused it on stopping the run thus making it easier to put up the passing stats?

If they used that strategy, that's probably why they're losers.

You make it sound like probowlers at QB and receiver and scrubs at running back will beat a balanced team most of the time.

I don't think that is true.

It's absolutely true, if the Pro Bowl QB and receivers are clearly better than the QB and receivers on the "balanced" team.

Would you rather have Peyton Manning, Andre Johnson and Troy Hambrick, or have Donovan McNabb, T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Adrian Peterson?

I'll take Manning's squad and beat you the majority of the time.

Do you think that we should not keep the three quality running backs we have on our roster? And why?

If the cap wasn't a factor and we could trade Barber for a quality starting receiver, I'd do it today. Jones and Choice are still on their rookie contracts, so there's no reason to get rid of them.

 

[AdamJT13]

This has no bearing on my point, which has remained constant throughout our spirited exchange: "A team is more likely to be successful if it can threaten with both run and pass, if it can avoid being one dimensional."

The three bottom teams on your list were "lousy" passing teams; consequently, they were one dimensional, and incapable of threatening with both run and pass.

When a team chooses to run the ball does not detract from my point. If anything, it demonstrates the importance of the rushing game as a means of running out the clock and preserving a win. If your assertion about the conditions under which teams run is correct, a team with a decent running game is more likely to maintain its lead.

Your point about the Colts and Chargers would only have been valid (in the context of my point) if I had said, "Teams cannot be successful unless they have decent running games."

Obviously, I didn't say this. Rather, I asserted that teams are more likely to be successful if they can threaten with both run and pass. And, thus far, of the 12 teams who control their own playoff destinies, 8 have running games ranked in the top half of the league.

I'm dealing solely in what is likely, not what is absolute.

Consider these two teams with identical defenses --

A) A team great at passing but lousy at running

B) A team good at passing and great at running

You would claim that Team B can threaten with both the run and the pass, and therefore is better. I'm saying that Team A is better. Team B's "balance" is less important than Team A's superior ability to pass. And that's the bottom line -- passing and stopping the pass is the key to winning.