What Running/Passing Ratio are you hoping for?

[Doomsday101]

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.

Regardless of a team being a passing team or running team does not change the fact they have to play defense. Seattle ran a lot they also played very good defense so what offensive style you run has nothing to do with the defensive play. As for getting the lead then running? it does not work that way either you can run effectively or you can't, your not going to develop a run game to use only once you get a lead

 

[Idgit]

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

Nothing is guaranteed. We're only talking about the things that are likely to win you football games. Turnovers, ST scores. Lots of things can get you beat, even if you pass more effectively than the other guys.

But the point is, passing better than they do is likely to win you more games. Running better than they do is not. If keeping a defense off-balance were vital, than that would show up when you measure rushing effectiveness.

If we can't agree that passes to backs are actually passes, though, there's probably not much middle-ground to be had. As I've said in other threads, there's no point in being against running the ball better. If we're not wasting resources focussing on that, I'd be thrilled to see it happen. I just want to be sure first that scarce resources go to the things most likely to win you games.

 

[AbeBeta]

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.

Three of those teams have QBS who run the ball a ton. Those aren't traditional "running" plays. Those teams would not be top 4 if they didn't have guys like Wilson gaining 489 yards, Kap getting 415, or RGIII getting 815. Heck, even Ponder cracked 250 last year (that's about twice Romo's best). Mobile QBs aren't really "pound the ball down your throat" models. Also, Minn has a RB who can handle a 350 carry load and crap QB.

None of these are teams we could emulate.

 

[Doomsday101]

Nothing is guaranteed. We're only talking about the things that are likely to win you football games. Turnovers, ST scores. Lots of things can get you beat, even if you pass more effectively than the other guys.

But the point is, passing better than they do is likely to win you more games. Running better than they do is not. If keeping a defense off-balance were vital, than that would show up when you measure rushing effectiveness.

If we can't agree that passes to backs are actually passes, though, there's probably not much middle-ground to be had. As I've said in other threads, there's no point in being against running the ball better. If we're not wasting resources focussing on that, I'd be thrilled to see it happen. I just want to be sure first that scarce resources go to the things most likely to win you games.

No it doesn't, having an effective offense does, no one wins because they pass the ball better hell we would not lose to NY if it came down to who passes the ball better. An offense who can put up points in the air and on the ground is what wins games along with defense. How much a team passes really is not determining who will win. Who put up the most passing yards in a game will not determine who wins. If by running you keep the down and distance in your favor then it allows you to do what you want be it pass or run and that keeps defense on their heals so that does again both become important in winning. As for these starts well stats do not win game and it is a very narrow view of the game to look at stats alone. Ample teams last year used the running game very effectively and it helped young QB a lot so that they did not have to carry their teams

 

[Doomsday101]

Three of those teams have QBS who run the ball a ton. Those aren't traditional "running" plays. Those teams would not be top 4 if they didn't have guys like Wilson gaining 489 yards, Kap getting 415, or RGIII getting 815. Heck, even Ponder cracked 250 last year (that's about twice Romo's best). Mobile QBs aren't really "pound the ball down your throat" models. Also, Minn has a RB who can handle a 350 carry load and crap QB.

None of these are teams we could emulate.

and how you get a running game means little, if you choose to do so by allowing the QB to run the end is still accomplished however that team does put their QB at a higher risk. I think the Cowboys have a fine RB in Murray and if we can open holes for him and he can stay healthy then he can do a lot to help this team win games.

 

[Hoofbite]

Sturm touched on this a bit in one of his Garrett posts.

Save for a small increase in 2009, the percentage of running plays has steadily declined during Garret's first 5 seasons and then significantly dropped in 2012.

Run / Pass

2007: 43.0% / 57.0%
2008: 40.9% / 59.1%
2009: 41.9% / 58.1%
2010: 40.6% / 59.4%
2011: 39.2% / 60.8%
2012: 32.6% / 67.4%

2007 had the best passing YPA for the entire span.

I've said it before that the team relies too much on Romo to pull them out of a hole every single week. Dallas only had possession of the ball with lead at home for 36:36 last season. 17:58 came from the Tampa home opener, which means that for the remaining 7 home games the team had the lead for a combined 19:38. 7 games, or 420 minutes of game play and Dallas mustered less than 20 minutes of game time with the possession and the lead. On top of that, 10:36 came from the Pittsburgh game which would leave 9:02 seconds for the remaining 6 home games. All year long the team waited until halftime and then asked Romo to dig them out of whatever hole they were stuck in. A stronger running game would not only allow Dallas to become less predictable, it would allow Romo a little bit of breathing room.

 

[TheCount]

For me it's not about the ratio. You gotta pass to win in this league. It's all about efficiency, game management and situational awareness. Those are the three reasons I'm happy the play calling is out of Garrett's hands, he struggled in all three facets and now he can focus on game management. Hopefully the staff is in place to boost efficiency as well, but that'll mostly come down the the players.

 

[Idgit]

No it doesn't, having an effective offense does, no one wins because they pass the ball better hell we would not lose to NY if it came down to who passes the ball better. An offense who can put up points in the air and on the ground is what wins games along with defense. How much a team passes really is not determining who will win. Who put up the most passing yards in a game will not determine who wins. If by running you keep the down and distance in your favor then it allows you to do what you want be it pass or run and that keeps defense on their heals so that does again both become important in winning. As for these starts well stats do not win game and it is a very narrow view of the game to look at stats alone. Ample teams last year used the running game very effectively and it helped young QB a lot so that they did not have to carry their teams

I think you're still struggling with separating the notions that there are obvious situations where running the ball is important in offensive football from the notion that running it effectively in those situations doesn't make you appreciably more likely to win the games.

Teams *do* win by passing more effectively than their opponents. That's well established. And the fact that there are games where it turns out to not be the case doesn't mean the correlation doesn't exist. There are other things that correlate strongly with winning, too, and if they come into play, they counteract the benefits of the more efficient passing offense. On the whole, though, you do the things most likely to win the games. Anything else puts you at a competitive disadvantage. Dumb luck may let you overcome that disadvantage every now and then, but, over time, it's going to hurt you.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

The only way the Cowboys are ever going to get to the SB under Romo is to get the running game going. 7 Years is proof that just passing the ball won't work. It's great for stats but not for wins. This team needs balance.

 

[jobberone]

Pass more efficiently. Run effectively esp in the RZ and short yardage as well as keep away. Defend the pass better. Score in the RZ and don't let them. Get TOs. Win TOP and FP. Make less mistakes.

All those say you played better esp when it mattered the most.

 

[TheFinisher]

Three of those teams have QBS who run the ball a ton. Those aren't traditional "running" plays. Those teams would not be top 4 if they didn't have guys like Wilson gaining 489 yards, Kap getting 415, or RGIII getting 815. Heck, even Ponder cracked 250 last year (that's about twice Romo's best). Mobile QBs aren't really "pound the ball down your throat" models. Also, Minn has a RB who can handle a 350 carry load and crap QB.

None of these are teams we could emulate.

Seattle gained over 2000 yards from their RBs, San Fran gained 1900 yards from their RBs, and Minnesota gained 2300 yards from their backs. Washington was the one team that leaned on their QB to help generate the run game, but they still had a 1600 yard Rookie RB.

Heck New England had over 2100 yards from their RBs and ranked 7th in the league. Texans 8th in the league, over 2K from their backs. Baltimore, 11th in the league 1900 yards from their backs.

All those teams also rank in the top half of the league for Yard per attempt.

We gained 1100 yards from our backs, ranking 31st in the league.

Our YPC of 3.6 was tied for 30th and was similar to other non-playoff teams like the Jets, Jaguars, Raiders, Chargers and the Cardinals.

Good teams stay balanced, bad teams trend 1-dimensional and predictable.

 

[TheFinisher]

Sturm touched on this a bit in one of his Garrett posts.

Save for a small increase in 2009, the percentage of running plays has steadily declined during Garret's first 5 seasons and then significantly dropped in 2012.

Run / Pass

2007: 43.0% / 57.0%
2008: 40.9% / 59.1%
2009: 41.9% / 58.1%
2010: 40.6% / 59.4%
2011: 39.2% / 60.8%
2012: 32.6% / 67.4%

2007 had the best passing YPA for the entire span.

I've said it before that the team relies too much on Romo to pull them out of a hole every single week. Dallas only had possession of the ball with lead at home for 36:36 last season. 17:58 came from the Tampa home opener, which means that for the remaining 7 home games the team had the lead for a combined 19:38. 7 games, or 420 minutes of game play and Dallas mustered less than 20 minutes of game time with the possession and the lead. On top of that, 10:36 came from the Pittsburgh game which would leave 9:02 seconds for the remaining 6 home games. All year long the team waited until halftime and then asked Romo to dig them out of whatever hole they were stuck in. A stronger running game would not only allow Dallas to become less predictable, it would allow Romo a little bit of breathing room.

So what you're saying is the 2 times we've made the playoffs in the past 6 years were the only times we actually had a good running game? Who woulda guessed...

 

[Doomsday101]

I think you're still struggling with separating the notions that there are obvious situations where running the ball is important in offensive football from the notion that running it effectively in those situations doesn't make you appreciably more likely to win the games.

Teams *do* win by passing more effectively than their opponents. That's well established. And the fact that there are games where it turns out to not be the case doesn't mean the correlation doesn't exist. There are other things that correlate strongly with winning, too, and if they come into play, they counteract the benefits of the more efficient passing offense. On the whole, though, you do the things most likely to win the games. Anything else puts you at a competitive disadvantage. Dumb luck may let you overcome that disadvantage every now and then, but, over time, it's going to hurt you.

Passing is important I agree running the ball too is important and does contribute to winning, anything a team does to move the ball to put points on the board be it through the air or on the ground is what helps you win. Running gives offense balance and keeps defense off balance so it matters it is contributing to the success of an offense.

When GB face Seattle in the 1st half GB never tried to run the results were Rodgers sacked 11 times and taking big hits. 2nd half GB comes out running the Seahawks still pinning their ears back but now the are over running the play so they start backing off and GB comes back. It mattered because it kept the Seahawks from just going after the QB, anything that can keep a defense in check is part of winning.

You guys get hung up on this well passing is what wins games, fact is what wins games is an effective offense and how you go about that really does not matter what matters is moving the chains and putting up points so for some teams in the NFL the run plays a bigger role. In Dallas we have no problems in the passing game for the most part we rank and have ranked in the top since 2006 but we have not ran well yet in games we have our offense has been very effective

 

[jobberone]

40/60 is ok with me but the defense will dictate run/pass as well as in game situations. So every game is different. You'd hope it to avg out though. Run effectively takes care of most of that side of the equation.

 

[Big D]

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.

I would add to that, running the to keep the clock moving is a tactic that's seemed to have been lost around here. IMO We've lost games because we continue to pass in situations where ball control and defense are the key.

 

[Doomsday101]

I would add to that, running the to keep the clock moving is a tactic that's seemed to have been lost around here. IMO We've lost games because we continue to pass in situations where ball control and defense are the key.

True but teams who can run the ball do so not just to run the clock but as part of their offense. I think we have the RB to do the job, we just need the OL to start opening holes for them. If we can keep ourselfs in good down and distance situation it put defense playing the guessing game. There is no hiding what an offense has to do when they are looking at 3rd and 8 or 10. People at home know you have to throw and the defense damn sure knows it and those guys on defense go on the attack. Watching teams like the Seahawks they will pound lynch time after time then they hit you down field with the pass. When you play them you know Lynch is a big key that you must stop, if you don't then Seahawks will just keep pounding on you.

 

[TheCount]

Nothing is guaranteed. We're only talking about the things that are likely to win you football games. Turnovers, ST scores. Lots of things can get you beat, even if you pass more effectively than the other guys.

But the point is, passing better than they do is likely to win you more games. Running better than they do is not. If keeping a defense off-balance were vital, than that would show up when you measure rushing effectiveness.

If we can't agree that passes to backs are actually passes, though, there's probably not much middle-ground to be had. As I've said in other threads, there's no point in being against running the ball better. If we're not wasting resources focussing on that, I'd be thrilled to see it happen. I just want to be sure first that scarce resources go to the things most likely to win you games.

Resources have been going to the passing game for a Long time here with middling results. I think anyone having a run vs pass argument is spinning in circles. It's not one or the other, even when it comes to allocating resources.

Simply stated, Dez helps the running game as much as Murray helps the passing game.

 

[Idgit]

Passing is important I agree running the ball too is important and does contribute to winning, anything a team does to move the ball to put points on the board be it through the air or on the ground is what helps you win. Running gives offense balance and keeps defense off balance so it matters it is contributing to the success of an offense.

When GB face Seattle in the 1st half GB never tried to run the results were Rodgers sacked 11 times and taking big hits. 2nd half GB comes out running the Seahawks still pinning their ears back but now the are over running the play so they start backing off and GB comes back. It mattered because it kept the Seahawks from just going after the QB, anything that can keep a defense in check is part of winning.

You guys get hung up on this well passing is what wins games, fact is what wins games is an effective offense and how you go about that really does not matter what matters is moving the chains and putting up points so for some teams in the NFL the run plays a bigger role. In Dallas we have no problems in the passing game for the most part we rank and have ranked in the top since 2006 but we have not ran well yet in games we have our offense has been very effective

Again, it's the difference between running the ball and running the ball effectively. As long as you're running the ball in the situations that require or invite it, it doesn't matter how well you do it. The exception is short yardage and goal line. But you don't need to point out situations where running the ball is important. We all agree that those situations exist and that they're essential to any offensive team.

But, when it comes to passing, if you do it better than they do it, you're a lot more likely to win the game. Nobody's getting hung up on that, it's a simple mathematical fact.

As regards the ratio, personally, I'm hoping we end up around 55/45 or better, but, again, it's mostly because I want to be playing with some leads this year and running the ball to avoid passing game mistakes late.

 

[Idgit]

Resources have been going to the passing game for a Long time here with middling results. I think anyone having a run vs pass argument is spinning in circles. It's not one or the other, even when it comes to allocating resources.

Simply stated, Dez helps the running game as much as Murray helps the passing game.

I don't agree that the passing game results have been middling. I believe they've been good. And I believe that if we spent more resources on stopping the other guys' passing games, they'd be a heck of a lot better.

Take away some of the -13 turnover differential with more picks on defense, stay out of a few unnecessarily close games as a result and so take away a few more of the turnovers on offense by not passing into adverse situations, and we'd see an offense even more successful than it's been during the last 6-7 seasons.

And, yes, running backs do help the passing game by putting offenses in positions where they can be successful passing. We all get that, I think.

 

[Doomsday101]

Again, it's the difference between running the ball and running the ball effectively. As long as you're running the ball in the situations that require or invite it, it doesn't matter how well you do it. The exception is short yardage and goal line. But you don't need to point out situations where running the ball is important. We all agree that those situations exist and that they're essential to any offensive team.

But, when it comes to passing, if you do it better than they do it, you're a lot more likely to win the game. Nobody's getting hung up on that, it's a simple mathematical fact.

As regards the ratio, personally, I'm hoping we end up around 55/45 or better, but, again, it's mostly because I want to be playing with some leads this year and running the ball to avoid passing game mistakes late.

That is your view, mine is for some NFL teams the run is important and it is more than just passing the ball it is running an offense which consist of running and passing. You don't have to be the best running team in the NFL hell you don't need to be the best passing team in the NFL fact is neither SF or Balt were even ranked in the top half in passing yet both were in the top 11 in rushing SF(4) and Balt (11)

When you start throwing defense in? Defense has nothing to do with it, no matter what kind of offense you run, defense still has to do the job meaning stopping the pass and the run and preventing the opposing team from scoring.

I'm not belittling the pass what so ever only stating that the run game still is signficant when it comes to winning ball game. If you disagree well then we certainly do not see things the same way.

You talk of running when it is "situations that require or invite it" Not even sure what that means there are quality teams who run the ball when they choose to and they pass not because they are forced into sure passing situations. They run it so that defense has no clue as to what you are about to run play wise.