What Running/Passing Ratio are you hoping for?

[5Stars]

Not sure these are actually the facts. What's your measure of running effectively? Running a lot?

It's not a fallacy that passing effectively wins games, and that rushing effectively does not. People just misinterpret what that means. Running the ball obviously plays an important role in an NFL offense. It's just the case that doing it better than the other guys doesn't usually help you win the ballgame.

But there's no denying that teams that pass the ball effectively tend to score more points, and, as a result, are in position to run the ball more often--regardless how effective or ineffective their running games are. Playing with the lead is the reason those teams win more games, and running is a by product of playing with the lead and not necessarily the cause of it.

But, not in all cases...remember #22 ran the ball with a separated shoulder during the Giants game. The kept feeding and feeding him the ball because the Giants could not stop it. When something works, you stick with it.

Both passing and running are dictated by how the game is being played.

 

[Sarge]

I expect 60/40 in favor of the pass - but I would prefer 50/50.

 

[Idgit]

But, not in all cases...remember #22 ran the ball with a separated shoulder during the Giants game. The kept feeding and feeding him the ball because the Giants could not stop it. When something works, you stick with it.

Both passing and running are dictated by how the game is being played.

Yeah, well, what goes on in those situations is that running the ball lets you effectively eliminate the risk of passing poorly. More power to us if we can do that consistently. But you can bet, even with the great 22 toting the rock, if the other guys were passing effectively against us, we'd eventually have been passing it, too. You can't take the air out of a ball that you need to throw.

 

[Idgit]

Running a lot is not what I consider running effectively running effectively is being able to pick up needed yards at will, I'm tired of watching 3 and 1 or 2 and we get stuffed. Goal line rushing matters. If you can put a back out there who can put up the yards he becomes a threat and defense have to honor it they can't just go after the QB. I have watched as this team pass and pass and pass and it does not work you need to be able to run if you can't then Romo is going to get beat up once again and frankly I'm tired of it.

Goal line and short yardage are the obvious situations where running the ball effectively matters. I don't dispute that, but it's also conceded in every one of these offensive effectiveness correlation threads.

The QB getting beat up happens usually for the same reasons teams have trouble passing effectively. And I don't like seeing that any more than you do.

 

[5Stars]

Yeah, well, what goes on in those situations is that running the ball lets you effectively eliminate the risk of passing poorly. More power to us if we can do that consistently. But you can bet, even with the great 22 toting the rock, if the other guys were passing effectively against us, we'd eventually have been passing it, too. You can't take the air out of a ball that you need to throw.

This is true, and that is why I always do and always will, say that football is a team game. It is not static, it is not linear, it is totally dynamic depending on how the game is going. If you can run the ball, run the ball until they try and stop it. If you can pass the ball, pass it until they stop it. Aikman was the beneficiary of having #22 and #88...and Aikman could burn you as much as Emmitt could burn you, as much as Irvin could burn you. It just depends on the situation...if you get behind, you try and pass (which gets Romo in trouble at times), but if the Cowboys could stop the pass and let the running game keep lead, then the pass is not as important.

 

[BrassCowboy]

Where we have trouble is in pass defense. We pass the ball well, but we can't get into position to run out the clocks because the other teams can pass against us at will, too. Now, last season that problem was exacerbated by injuries to the interior OL and to Demarco Murray, but overall, the problem is the game situations we're in and not necessarily our ability to actually move the ball on the ground.

Were you around to watch Emmitt and that Oline beat up defenses to where opposing defenses were visually exhausted on the field. by mid 3rd and 4th quarter, not only did we already have control of games, but Emmitt and Troy were able to tear it up.

EDIT: I see from above post, you have watched Emmitt.

 

[BrassCowboy]

One thing I remember us doing very well back in the SB years with Troy and Emmitt, and this takes nothing away from our need for a strong running game and a balanced attack, it was the passes out of the backfield to the RBs (Emmitt and "Moose" Johnston). Giants have gotten really good at this, and that is the ability to wait for the pass rush to get close to the QB then just lob it over their head to waiting RB.

 

[Doomsday101]

Not sure these are actually the facts. What's your measure of running effectively? Running a lot?

It's not a fallacy that passing effectively wins games, and that rushing effectively does not. People just misinterpret what that means. Running the ball obviously plays an important role in an NFL offense. It's just the case that doing it better than the other guys doesn't usually help you win the ballgame.

But there's no denying that teams that pass the ball effectively tend to score more points, and, as a result, are in position to run the ball more often--regardless how effective or ineffective their running games are. Playing with the lead is the reason those teams win more games, and running is a by product of playing with the lead and not necessarily the cause of it.

it is a fallacy to think all a team has to do is throw to win. To win means you play football that is running and passing the notion that running is not important or does not aid in winning is a falsehood. Great RB and great rushing will slow down a pass rusher faster then anything. As I said teams who both ran and passed well were sitting in the playoffs that is plain and simple. Running is not just being able to run when you have a lead teams who can run will do so early as well as late in the game you don't just flip a switch and become a 4th qrt rushing team. No one has claimed passing is not a major key only disagreement I have ever had is when people claim running does not play a part in winning. It does and it has even in recent times

 

[Idgit]

Were you around to watch Emmitt and that Oline beat up defenses to where opposing defenses were visually exhausted on the field. by mid 3rd and 4th quarter, not only did we already have control of games, but Emmitt and Troy were able to tear it up.

EDIT: I see from above post, you have watched Emmitt.

Lol. Yes, I've seen the Triplets play. Those teams also had good defenses and, as I've said, effective passing games. The pattern was still the same: pass effectively to get ahead, then take the air out of the ball and wear the other guys completely out.

One thing I remember us doing very well back in the SB years with Troy and Emmitt, and this takes nothing away from our need for a strong running game and a balanced attack, it was the passes out of the backfield to the RBs (Emmitt and "Moose" Johnston). Giants have gotten really good at this, and that is the ability to wait for the pass rush to get close to the QB then just lob it over their head to waiting RB.

I completely agree on the passes to backs out of the backfield. I don't understand why we don't do it more, and it's one of the things I thought we'd be really strong at last year with a C and two OTs with good footwork and two RBs who can catch and make one-cut runs after the LoS. I was really surprised we didn't do a better job at it, honestly.

 

[Idgit]

it is a fallacy to think all a team has to do is throw to win. To win means you play football that is running and passing the notion that running is not important or does not aid in winning is a falsehood. Great RB and great rushing will slow down a pass rusher faster then anything. As I said teams who both ran and passed well were sitting in the playoffs that is plain and simple. Running is not just being able to run when you have a lead teams who can run will do so early as well as late in the game you don't just flip a switch and become a 4th qrt rushing team. No one has claimed passing is not a major key only disagreement I have ever had is when people claim running does not play a part in winning. It does and it has even in recent times

I have yet to see anybody say all a team has to do is throw it to win. You have to throw it effectively. Or avoid throwing it ineffectively. And stop the other guys from throwing effectively themselves. A running game is beneficial if it helps you pass effectively or avoid passing ineffectively. It's only running better than the other guys that doesn't help you win.
Again, unless we're talking about goal line/short yardage or are simply measuring 'running well' in terms of total yards and neglecting the impact of playing with a lead on a team's rushing statistics.

 

[Apollo Creed]

 

[Doomsday101]

Lol. Yes, I've seen the Triplets play. Those teams also had good defenses and, as I've said, effective passing games. The pattern was still the same: pass effectively to get ahead, then take the air out of the ball and wear the other guys completely out.



I completely agree on the passes to backs out of the backfield. I don't understand why we don't do it more, and it's one of the things I thought we'd be really strong at last year with a C and two OTs with good footwork and two RBs who can catch and make one-cut runs after the LoS. I was really surprised we didn't do a better job at it, honestly.

That is untrue, If you look at Emmitt carries by qrt he ran the ball as much in the 1st qrt as he did the last qrt. If Dallas was passing to get the lead and Emmitt was get the majority of carries in the 4th one he would not have won the rushing titles he did and 2 he would not have become the all time leading rusher. Dallas ran the ball at pretty much at will. Troy wan not having to put up 300 yard passing games like Marino, Kelly, Young and a host of others but then we won championships

 

[TheFinisher]

it is a fallacy to think all a team has to do is throw to win. To win means you play football that is running and passing the notion that running is not important or does not aid in winning is a falsehood. Great RB and great rushing will slow down a pass rusher faster then anything. As I said teams who both ran and passed well were sitting in the playoffs that is plain and simple. Running is not just being able to run when you have a lead teams who can run will do so early as well as late in the game you don't just flip a switch and become a 4th qrt rushing team. No one has claimed passing is not a major key only disagreement I have ever had is when people claim running does not play a part in winning. It does and it has even in recent times

It's crazy to suggest running the ball is an afterthought lol.

The top 4 running teams in the NFL... Washington, Minnesota, Seattle and San Francisco... must not care about what the "advanced stats" say. They'll just continue to pound the ball down the NFC's throat on their way to the playoffs.

 

[Doomsday101]

I have yet to see anybody say all a team has to do is throw it to win. You have to throw it effectively. Or avoid throwing it ineffectively. And stop the other guys from throwing effectively themselves. A running game is beneficial if it helps you pass effectively or avoid passing ineffectively. It's only running better than the other guys that doesn't help you win.
Again, unless we're talking about goal line/short yardage or are simply measuring 'running well' in terms of total yards and neglecting the impact of playing with a lead on a team's rushing statistics.

I'm not talking about winning the rushing yards in a game but then hell we have won the passing yards in games only to lose. There have been many occation where Dallas racked up a lot more yards vs the Giants and yet we lose. To claim NY pass defense was better does not hold water since they were giving up more than us. However they had RB to turn to when we didn't. Brandon Jacobs killed us. Passing is important no one ever said it wasn't but running the ball is a big aid to the offense and when you can't run then you got trouble and vs quality defense if you can only throw then you are in even bigger trouble because defending 1 dimensional offense is a lot easier to do there is little guessing by the defense of what you have to do.

 

[Doomsday101]

It's crazy to suggest running the ball is an afterthought lol.

The top 4 running teams in the NFL... Washington, Minnesota, Seattle and San Francisco... must not care about what the "advanced stats" say. They'll just continue to pound the ball down the NFC's throat on their way to the playoffs.

I agree if you look at the top 11 teams in rushing 8 of them were in post season including the Pats. I don't want to see an offense running without a passing game I'm just tired of seeing a passing game that has ranked at the top of the league without a running game like Dallas. Dallas can pass with the best of them having a running game to turn to only takes pressure off the passing game and it keeps defense honest.

 

[TheFinisher]

I agree if you look at the top 11 teams in rushing 8 of them were in post season including the Pats. I don't want to see an offense running without a passing game I'm just tired of seeing a passing game that has ranked at the top of the league without a running game like Dallas. Dallas can pass with the best of them having a running game to turn to only takes pressure off the passing game and it keeps defense honest.

Preaching to the choir

I've said it time and time again... we won't take that next step until our run game re-surfaces.

 

[Doomsday101]

Preaching to the choir

Seems to be a small choir. lol

I watch enough football to know the more an offense can do the harder they are to defend.

 

[Idgit]

That is untrue, If you look at Emmitt carries by qrt he ran the ball as much in the 1st qrt as he did the last qrt. If Dallas was passing to get the lead and Emmitt was get the majority of carries in the 4th one he would not have won the rushing titles he did and 2 he would not have become the all time leading rusher. Dallas ran the ball at pretty much at will. Troy wan not having to put up 300 yard passing games like Marino, Kelly, Young and a host of others but then we won championships

They ran Emmitt a lot on first downs in any quarter, and then later in the games to close them out. Which makes sense as they kept the downs and distances convertible. Look at Aikman's attempts splits, though, and you'll see that they did a lot of their passing in the second quarter as they built up those early leads.

Obviously, Emmitt Smith got his share of carries. Also as obvious, this isn't 1992, we don't have Emmitt Smith, and we don't have that OL and we do have a passing-oriented offense a lot of talented skill position players. Again, because I can't seem to make the point enough. It's not that the running game is not very important in football. It's that running it more effectively than the other guy doesn't necessarily help you win.

 

[Idgit]

I agree if you look at the top 11 teams in rushing 8 of them were in post season including the Pats. I don't want to see an offense running without a passing game I'm just tired of seeing a passing game that has ranked at the top of the league without a running game like Dallas. Dallas can pass with the best of them having a running game to turn to only takes pressure off the passing game and it keeps defense honest.

Or...we could do what's a lot easier and fix the huge pass defense problems. Get the leads, and then run the ball more once we've got the lead and let that rushing yardage shortfall just take care of itself.

 

[Doomsday101]

They ran Emmitt a lot on first downs in any quarter, and then later in the games to close them out. Which makes sense as they kept the downs and distances convertible. Look at Aikman's attempts splits, though, and you'll see that they did a lot of their passing in the second quarter as they built up those early leads.

Obviously, Emmitt Smith got his share of carries. Also as obvious, this isn't 1992, we don't have Emmitt Smith, and we don't have that OL and we do have a passing-oriented offense a lot of talented skill position players. Again, because I can't seem to make the point enough. It's not that the running game is not very important in football. It's that running it more effectively than the other guy doesn't necessarily help you win.

Passing better than the other team does not ensure winning either. We have out passed a lot of teams only to lose. I don't care about what another team does I want a running game to take the pressure off the QB, I want a running attack to move the ball and to help put points on the board. That will win games. Who throws better? who cares. Romo has out passed Eli but we sure as heck have not had the running game they have had in SB years. When we have had good running teams we have won. 1992 or 2013 does not matter it is still football and to keep a defense off balance is still vital. WCO like GB may not run as much but then many of the flair out passes to RB or even WR as Bill Walsh once said is their extension of the running game, stat wise it goes down as a pass just as a shuttle to the back is a pass but it serves the same purpose as a run.

I continue to say yes passing is important but an all around offense will win more than they lose. Dallas is not winning by putting up impressive stats in the passing game but this team has won when we can do both effectively