Trent Dilfer calls out the run-loving dinosaurs

[MichaelWinicki]

If you can run for 4+ yards a carry consistently, you completely DOMINATE the game. This is why running is so dangerous, because of its potential.

Welcome to the board, but consider...

Cleveland 2009– 13th in the NFL in YPC at 4.2

San Diego 2009– Dead last in the NFL in YPC at 3.3

Indianaplolis 2009– 3rd from last in the NFL in YPC at 3.6

 

[AdamJT13]

If you can run for 4+ yards a carry consistently, you completely DOMINATE the game.

Or you can lose every game, like the Titans did earlier this season. They had five straight games averaging 9.6, 4.2, 5.0, 4.3 and 5.4 yards per carry, and they lost every one of them (and got "completed DOMINATED" in three of them) because their opponents threw the ball better. It wasn't until the Titans started throwing better than their opponents that they actually started winning. The team that passed better has won 14 of the 15 games the Titans have played this season.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Or you can lose every game, like the Titans did earlier this season. They had five straight games averaging 9.6, 4.2, 5.0, 4.3 and 5.4 yards per carry, and they lost every one of them (and got "completed DOMINATED" in three of them) because their opponents threw the ball better. It wasn't until the Titans started throwing better than their opponents that they actually started winning. The team that passed better has won 14 of the 15 games the Titans have played this season.

Boy and how often have you seen that?

A team with a great RB who picks up tons of yards, but they don't win.

I remember watching the Bills of the early 70's with OJ just be sorta ho-hum.

And then there was Walter Payton for several years trying to jump-start a Bears team that basically had him and not much else.

And we know all about Barry Sanders.

 

[RomoDoubter]

Welcome to the board, but consider...

Cleveland 2009– 13th in the NFL in YPC at 4.2

San Diego 2009– Dead last in the NFL in YPC at 3.3

Indianaplolis 2009– 3rd from last in the NFL in YPC at 3.6

What I mean is, if a team only ran, and they always ran for 4+, then they would almost seal the game for themselves. If they stopped the other team just once from scoring, they would win the game. Period.

Maybe the problem with those 4+ YPC teams you listed was that they passed when they should have been running.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

What I mean is, if a team only ran, and they always ran for 4+, then they would almost seal the game for themselves. If they stopped the other team just once from scoring, they would win the game. Period.

Maybe the problem with those 4+ YPC teams you listed was that they passed when they should have been running.

That's the problem.

It doesn't work out at 4ypc every single play.

That's why you can't rely on it to get you points. There are many times when you are going to be 3rd and 5 or 2nd and 8 and that's when you need an efficient passing game.

 

[tyke1doe]

The Giants were much more efficient. The Patriots only averaged 4.3 yards per passing play. The Giants were almost 2 1/2 yards better... at 6.7 yards per passing play.

That's a big difference.

Was it the Giants 26 rushes for 91 yards that won them the game or was it their vastly more efficient passing attack?

It definitely contributed to their winning the game, especially when it was more than double the Pats rushing yards.

Second, one could argue the Patriots were unprepared to counter with a running game because NE relied on the passing game and the Giants shut that down. Remember, this was a close game throughout the contest. It wasn't like the run game was a non-factor. We're not talking about the Giants being up by 21 points forcing the Pats to pass or vice versa. The running game was very much a part of this game and a factor in the contest.

Third, understand that the Patriots were blowing teams away with their passing game, yet could only muster 14 points against the Giants. Let me say that again: 14 points.
Meanwhile the Giants, used to a slow-pace game because of their rushing attack, scored 17 points. If the Giants passing game was that much more efficient that the Patriots', surely they would have scored more than 17 points.

The combination of running and passing helped the Giants win. And I would say because the Giants were way more effective running the ball and only slightly more effective in passing the ball than the Patriots, the superior running game augmented the Giants passing game, which in this game, was superior to the Patriots' passing game.

 

[RomoDoubter]

That's the problem.

It doesn't work out at 4ypc every single play.

That's why you can't rely on it to get you points. There are many times when you are going to be 3rd and 5 or 2nd and 8 and that's when you need an efficient passing game.

But it doesn't work only because the defense has prepared their run defense to stop it. The point is that no team can allow their run defense to become deficient to the point that the offense simply has to run every play to win. Yes, you can say the same thing about the passing game, but with the run, there are fewer variables and more time of possession. The running game is a formidable threat.

I think, like others have said, it is not so much rushing yards that we should be looking at in this debate, it's rushing potential/talent. The threat of the run produces bigger numbers for the passing game.

 

[tyke1doe]

That's the problem.

It doesn't work out at 4ypc every single play.

That's why you can't rely on it to get you points. There are many times when you are going to be 3rd and 5 or 2nd and 8 and that's when you need an efficient passing game.

But isn't your passing efficiency going to be greater if you're facing 3rd and 4 versus 3rd and 8?

 

[AdamJT13]

But it doesn't work only because the defense has prepared their run defense to stop it. The point is that no team can allow their run defense to become deficient to the point that the offense simply has to run every play to win. Yes, you can say the same thing about the passing game, but with the run, there are fewer variables and more time of possession. The running game is a formidable threat.

I think, like others have said, it is not so much rushing yards that we should be looking at in this debate, it's rushing potential/talent. The threat of the run produces bigger numbers for the passing game.

For the umpteenth time, that's a nice theory, but it's not true. There's very little correlation between rushing success and passing success, either within a game or over the course of a season. The Colts, Chargers and Texans have NO running threat, are ranked 30th, 31st and 32nd in rushing yards per carry, but they have three of the league's best passing games. The Titans and Panthers have the two best running games in the league but are below-average at passing. Many statistical studies have shown that there's just not much correlation between the two. It probably does have SOME effect, but it is minimal -- and much less than many people believe.

 

[AdamJT13]

It definitely contributed to their winning the game, especially when it was more than double the Pats rushing yards.

Second, one could argue the Patriots were unprepared to counter with a running game because NE relied on the passing game and the Giants shut that down. Remember, this was a close game throughout the contest. It wasn't like the run game was a non-factor. We're not talking about the Giants being up by 21 points forcing the Pats to pass or vice versa. The running game was very much a part of this game and a factor in the contest.

Third, understand that the Patriots were blowing teams away with their passing game, yet could only muster 14 points against the Giants. Let me say that again: 14 points.
Meanwhile the Giants, used to a slow-pace game because of their rushing attack, scored 17 points. If the Giants passing game was that much more efficient that the Patriots', surely they would have scored more than 17 points.

The combination of running and passing helped the Giants win. And I would say because the Giants were way more effective running the ball and only slightly more effective in passing the ball than the Patriots, the superior running game augmented the Giants passing game, which in this game, was superior to the Patriots' passing game.

The Giants' two touchdown drives consisted of 15 yards on running plays and 148 yards on running plays. In the entire game, they picked up a whole four first downs by rushing (the Patriots got three). Without those two drives gained almost entirely by passing, the Giants would have scored a whopping three points.

And the Patriots scored only 14 points because the Giants shut down their PASSING game, not their running game. As I said earlier, the Patriots ran better in the Super Bowl than they did in the regular-season finale, when Brady torched the Giants for 356 yards and the Patriots put up 38 offensive points. The Giants' ability to shut down the Patriots in the Super Bowl had almost nothing to do with stopping the run and everything to do with stopping the pass (including sacking Brady five times, forcing a fumble on one and causing the Patriots to punt after two others).

 

[tyke1doe]

You're confusing total yards with effectiveness. The Giants had only 35 pass plays. The Patriots had 51 pass plays. That's 16 more pass plays to gain 11 more yards. The Giants were more effective passing. Even when adjusted for the interception Eli threw, they still were more effective.




Again, that's a nice theory, but it's not backed up by facts. Look at the last game of the regular season, in which the Patriots' offense scored 38 points. The Patriots rushed for 1.7 yards per attempt (44 total yards), but they averaged 8.0 yards per attempt as Brady went 32-for-42 for 356 yards, two touchdowns and no interceptions. The Patriots actually rushed better in the Super Bowl (2.8 YPC) but were far less effective passing. Obviously, that had nothing to do with their running game.

In the Patriots' two worst rushing games of the regular season that year, against Pittsburgh and Dallas, they averaged 2.4 and 2.6 yards per carry, but they averaged 8.7 and 7.6 yards per pass attempt, put up 34 and 48 offensive points, and Brady passed for 399 and 388 yards, respectively.



Like I said, when the Patriots' passing attack worked as usual, it produced a 16-0 record. The Giants' strong running game produced a 10-6 record in the regular season.

In the Super Bowl, the Patriots' passing game didn't work -- but it had nothing to do their running game working or not working. And the unusual success of the Giants' passing game had nothing to do with their running game working or not working. Before the drive on which the Giants took the lead, the Patriots had been the more effective team passing (although not great, they still had passed better than the Giants, which is why they held the lead). However, from that point on, the Giants averaged 7.6 yards per pass play, and the Patriots averaged minus-2.5. None of that had to do with the running games, because both defenses knew every play would be a pass except one 2-yard carry by Brandon Jacobs in short yardage.

Because they passed successfully, the Giants were able to score the go-ahead touchdown. And because they couldn't pass successfully, the Patriots went backward when they had their chance to tie or win. And as a result of that drive, the Giants finished as the more effective passing team.

A few points:

1. The problem with these discussions is that facts and stats are tossed about without putting them into proper context. Stats can be used to prove one's argument and disprove one's argument.
For example, I find it interesting that you highlight the Patriots game against the Giants in the regular season without giving the Giants stats.
Yes, the Patriots averaged 8 yards per attempt, but the Giants also average 8 (7.8) yards per attempt. If you take into consideration completions not just attempts, the Giants averaged 11.4 and the Pats 11.1. The Giants actually had the higher average in passes completed and still lost the game. By the way, Brady had two touchdowns, Eli had four touchdowns.

2. I think our fundamental disagreement involves how we look at the stats within the game. Victory in a football game is not the result of just one play, but the culmination of plays. Coverting a 3rd and 2 might not be significant on its own, but if it helps a team continue a drive and then complete a 15-yard touchdown play, it is very significant.
The Giants had better balance on offense in the Super Bowl, 56/44 pass-to-run vs. The Patriot's 75/25 pass-to-run. Compare that with the regular season game. The Giants had a 62/38 pass-to-run vs. the Pats 61/39 pass-to-run. The Giants increased their rushing plays, thus reducing their passing plays and won the Super Bowl. The Patriots increased their passing ratio and lost. The game was still in the balance, the Patriots pass more and still lost.

3. I don't think anyone is arguing that teams don't need to pass to win. The passing game is very important. But the running game is also important. And as the games get more important, i.e., into the playoffs and the Super Bowl, a running game is very important to an effective passing game. And pass-run ratio as well as a team's defensive ranking as well as other stats factor into the equation.



a difference in the game

 

[The Great Number 8]

Adam - what about down and distance situations? I agree you need a good passing game in today's league. But I think the arguement is going to be a good running game will put you in more 2 and six or better kind of plays, and therefore have the ability to convert more first downs to keep drives alive. I would have to think the ability to have a run play as opposed to your opponent having to pass makes your offense better.

Likewise, are their situational stats for games that are +/- 7 points? Are the good teams better at pass defense simply because in the 4th quarter they know the other team has to pass?

I have no idea if you have the answers but if you could even direct me where to find them it would be appreciated.

 

[tyke1doe]

The Giants' two touchdown drives consisted of 15 yards on running plays and 148 yards on running plays.

Huh?

In the entire game, they picked up a whole four first downs by rushing (the Patriots got three). Without those two drives gained almost entirely by passing, the Giants would have scored a whopping three points.

Sorry, Adam. But you can't segregate those drives for the entire game. The Giants were able to keep the game close. Those drives were as important as the scoring drives, especially considering how the Patriots were this superior passing team.

And the Patriots scored only 14 points because the Giants shut down their PASSING game, not their running game. As I said earlier, the Patriots ran better in the Super Bowl than they did in the regular-season finale, when Brady torched the Giants for 356 yards and the Patriots put up 38 offensive points. The Giants' ability to shut down the Patriots in the Super Bowl had almost nothing to do with stopping the run and everything to do with stopping the pass (including sacking Brady five times, forcing a fumble on one and causing the Patriots to punt after two others).

Yes, the Giants shut down the vaunted Patriots passing game. And in a close game, the Patriots couldn't muster anything on the ground to back off the Giants pass rush.

Second, it's interesting that now you want to focus on the passing yards the Pats gained against the Giants. But when I offered it, you wanted to point to passing efficiency.

Oh, and I agree, the Giants were able to shut down the Patriots passing attack. And while it had nothing to do with stopping the run, that's more because the Patriots were not a run-oriented team. They couldn't compensate which is why the Patriots run game was irrelevant. As I've stated, the Patriots weren't a balanced team. A balanced team is suppose to compensate with the run and pass. The Patriots could not. And it bit them in the butt in the final game. And, thus, the Pats couldn't grab four Super Bowls in the 00s, which I'm glad because the Cowboys didn't pull off four in the 90s.

 

[Cover 2]

Adam - what about down and distance situations? I agree you need a good passing game in today's league. But I think the arguement is going to be a good running game will put you in more 2 and six or better kind of plays, and therefore have the ability to convert more first downs to keep drives alive. I would have to think the ability to have a run play as opposed to your opponent having to pass makes your offense better.

Likewise, are their situational stats for games that are +/- 7 points? Are the good teams better at pass defense simply because in the 4th quarter they know the other team has to pass?

I have no idea if you have the answers but if you could even direct me where to find them it would be appreciated.

Yet a lot of the top offenses have poor running games. I guess it would be interesting to see how many rushing 1st downs they get as opposed to yards per carry.

 

[AdamJT13]

1. The problem with these discussions is that facts and stats are tossed about without putting them into proper context. Stats can be used to prove one's argument and disprove one's argument.
For example, I find it interesting that you highlight the Patriots game against the Giants in the regular season without giving the Giants stats.
Yes, the Patriots averaged 8 yards per attempt, but the Giants also average 8 (7.8) yards per attempt. If you take into consideration completions not just attempts, the Giants averaged 11.4 and the Pats 11.1. The Giants actually had the higher average in passes completed and still lost the game. By the way, Brady had two touchdowns, Eli had four touchdowns.

The Patriots averaged 8.0 yards per pass, and the Giants averaged 7.2. And the game was high-scoring and close. The Giants also averaged 4.2 yards per rush, and the Patriots averaged 1.7. But which team won?

By the way, yards per completion isn't the key stat. If you go 1-for-40 for 40 yards, your passing game was horrific. And if you go 30-for-30 for 240 yards, it was absolutely terrific.

2. I think our fundamental disagreement involves how we look at the stats within the game. Victory in a football game is not the result of just one play, but the culmination of plays. Coverting a 3rd and 2 might not be significant on its own, but if it helps a team continue a drive and then complete a 15-yard touchdown play, it is very significant.
The Giants had better balance on offense in the Super Bowl, 56/44 pass-to-run vs. The Patriot's 75/25 pass-to-run. Compare that with the regular season game. The Giants had a 62/38 pass-to-run vs. the Pats 61/39 pass-to-run. The Giants increased their rushing plays, thus reducing their passing plays and won the Super Bowl. The Patriots increased their passing ratio and lost. The game was still in the balance, the Patriots pass more and still lost.

And none of that has a high correlation to winning. One specific example doesn't prove anything, especially when mounds of evidence suggest otherwise. In fact, some research has suggested that teams would fare better if they were LESS balanced.

But again, you can pretend anything you want and form all kinds of neat theories, but you're still ignoring years and years of evidence.

3. I don't think anyone is arguing that teams don't need to pass to win. The passing game is very important. But the running game is also important. And as the games get more important, i.e., into the playoffs and the Super Bowl, a running game is very important to an effective passing game. And pass-run ratio as well as a team's defensive ranking as well as other stats factor into the equation.

It doesn't matter what game it is, the team that passes better almost always wins, period. Who rushes better is not nearly as important, if at all. Feel free to keep thinking otherwise, but the facts aren't on your side.

 

[AdamJT13]

Huh?

Sorry, Adam. But you can't segregate those drives for the entire game. The Giants were able to keep the game close.

They kept the game close by shutting down the Patriots' passing game. If they hadn't done that, all of the running in the world wouldn't have kept them within 10 points. The Giants' running game was not very successful (3.5 YPC), contributed very little to their scoring and played almost no role (if any) in allowing their passing game to succeed on their winning drive.

Yes, the Giants shut down the vaunted Patriots passing game. And in a close game, the Patriots couldn't muster anything on the ground to back off the Giants pass rush.

Which doesn't make much of a difference anyway. Remember the season finale?

Second, it's interesting that now you want to focus on the passing yards the Pats gained against the Giants. But when I offered it, you wanted to point to passing efficiency.

I was putting the Patriots' passing success despite that glowing 1.7 YPC in terms that you used and could understand. I already mentioned that the Patriots averaged 8.0 yards per attempt. Not having a running game to "back off the pass rush" didn't hinder their passing game one bit.

Oh, and I agree, the Giants were able to shut down the Patriots passing attack. And while it had nothing to do with stopping the run, that's more because the Patriots were not a run-oriented team. They couldn't compensate which is why the Patriots run game was irrelevant. As I've stated, the Patriots weren't a balanced team. A balanced team is suppose to compensate with the run and pass. The Patriots could not. And it bit them in the butt in the final game.

"Compensating with a running game" almost never makes a difference in winning or losing. How many times does that need to be said? If the Patriots had averaged 4.5 YPC and run 30 times, it's almost certain that they still would have lost if they hadn't passed the ball better than they did or stopped the Giants from passing better than they did -- like, say, on the game-winning drive.

One last time: Games are almost always decided by which team passes the ball better. They're almost never decided by which team runs the ball better. There's very little correlation between running the ball well and winning, but there is a very high correlation between passing the ball well and winning. All of the conjecture in the world won't change those proven facts.