Jump to content
Matts4313

The Run Game doesnt matter

Recommended Posts

So @Matts4313, why did Tampa go 2-6 last year with Ryan Fitzpatrick in the line-up, averaging 8.80 AY/A?  That was good enough for 4th best in the league last year.  He also had the 9th best passer rating.

You know where Tampa's rushing YPA ranked last year?  Next-to-last at 3.9 yards.  Try telling them "the run game doesn't matter".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

So why dont you click the links? I provided all of them.

And I think you are purposely misconstruing the word correlate. Go back to the original post. Its not bulk passing, its efficient passing. Which means running a bunch and throwing rarely but efficiently is a viable strategy. It doesnt matter how you get there, but as long as your ANY/A is higher than the other team, you have anywhere between a 70-90% chance of winning (depending on time frame you look at).

Its the *only* stat that has a strong correlation to winning. Not bulk passing, not anything to do with running, nothing else. 

And my point is that the running game HELPS with that. Running the ball efficiently makes it easier for a QB to be successful. Meaning, it increases the probability of completing passes due to less pressure on him and fewer people covering WRs. I don’t know how to break it to you, but that’s CORRELATION. 

Edited by plan9misfit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

So @Matts4313, why did Tampa go 2-6 last year with Ryan Fitzpatrick in the line-up, averaging 8.80 AY/A?  That was good enough for 4th best in the league last year.  He also had the 9th best passer rating.

You know where Tampa's rushing YPA ranked last year?  Next-to-last at 3.9 yards.  Try telling them "the run game doesn't matter".

THANK YOU!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting facts to consider....

 

Since 1950, how successful were teams that won the rushing battle? Those teams won 72.9% of the time. That number is 72.7% since 1970, 71.9% since 1990, 71.3% since 2002, and 70.5% over the last 10 years.

 

I don’t know but it kinda seems like 70 years of history tells a different story.  If your team out rushes the other team... your team has a 70% + chance of winning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

So @Matts4313, why did Tampa go 2-6 last year with Ryan Fitzpatrick in the line-up, averaging 8.80 AY/A?  That was good enough for 4th best in the league last year.  He also had the 9th best passer rating.

You know where Tampa's rushing YPA ranked last year?  Next-to-last at 3.9 yards.  Try telling them "the run game doesn't matter".

Reread the premise of the debate. You have to have a higher ANY/A than your opponent. Just looking at the first two losses, it appears the rapist and tittykisser both had near perfect games. I assume that trend will hold true an apply to all the games. The team with the higher ANY/A has a 70-90% likelihood of winning depending on the time frame you look at.

9 hours ago, plan9misfit said:

And my point is that the running game HELPS with that. Running the ball efficiently makes it easier for a QB to be successful. Meaning, it increases the probability of completing passes due to less pressure on him and fewer people covering WRs. I don’t know how to break it to you, but that’s CORRELATION. 

There is absolutely no stats, evidence that back up that conclusion in a measurable way. If you think I am wrong, you do have the internet. Prove me wrong. Find the rushing stat that correlates to winning/passing better.

2 hours ago, The_Slamman said:

Interesting facts to consider....

 

Since 1950, how successful were teams that won the rushing battle? Those teams won 72.9% of the time. That number is 72.7% since 1970, 71.9% since 1990, 71.3% since 2002, and 70.5% over the last 10 years.

 

I don’t know but it kinda seems like 70 years of history tells a different story.  If your team out rushes the other team... your team has a 70% + chance of winning. 

link? because as I provided in the first post, the number since the 80's is actually 57%. So I doubt your finding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DaBoys said:

17-4 isn't a random scatter. 

 

Flip a coin 21 times and tell me if you get 17 of the same side

 

On 6/10/2019 at 6:48 AM, Matts4313 said:

So why dont you click the links? I provided all of them.

And I think you are purposely misconstruing the word correlate. Go back to the original post. Its not bulk passing, its efficient passing. Which means running a bunch and throwing rarely but efficiently is a viable strategy. It doesnt matter how you get there, but as long as your ANY/A is higher than the other team, you have anywhere between a 70-90% chance of winning (depending on time frame you look at).

Its the *only* stat that has a strong correlation to winning. Not bulk passing, not anything to do with running, nothing else. 

Again, I am using 1000's of games worth of data. You are using 21. 

And of those 21, the data still holds true. We win when we pass efficiently, its the only correlating factor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched a football life with LT(the running back). 

He and his teammates talked about the season the Chargers went 14-2 and had a first round bye. The season LT scored 31 TDs. They said he only got 8 touches in the 2nd half of the playoff loss. They all said it was the best team they had been on. They blamed the loss on not running the ball enough.

Then right after that, Willie McGinest suggested the Eagles run the ball more to protect Wentz. 

 

Then you have Kubiak on NFL.com who swears by the run: "After the Vikings struggled to run the ball last season, Kubiak believes the line overhaul this offseason will get Minnesota back on track.

 

"We better be able to run it," Kubiak said. "Obviously we want to be physical and run the ball, and if we do that we'll have a chance to make some plays."

 

Then our new Offensive Coordinator Kellen Moore said that we need to run more, and take advantage of our OL. And that DAK himself needs to run more. Also said this recently:

 

"At the end of the day, we want to get [Elliott] as many touches as we can," he said, via Jon Machota of The Dallas Morning News. "At the same time, you [have] got to recognize what a 16-plus game season is. ...We'll see how it progresses [with the other running backs], but if we can get it to Zeke, we're going to get it to Zeke."

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then theres this:

When Pete Carroll was asked about the Seahawks' commitment to the run and to being a truly balanced team last November, he offered probably the best summation of his overall philosophy:

 

"It's the most consistent, proven championship formula in the history of this game," he declaredconfidently.

 

And this:

During that decade -- the Bills went to the Super Bowl four straight years from 1990 to 1993 (that run inspired Carroll's "Win Forever" motto), leading the NFL in rushing in '91 and '92, and they were seventh and eighth in '90 and '93, respectively. The Dallas Cowboys won the Super Bowl in '92, were fifth in rushing, and in '93 won it again after finishing second in the NFL in rushing. The 49erswon it in '94 and were sixth in rushing. The Cowboys won it again in '95 and were second in rushing. The Broncos won it in '97 and '98 and were fourth and second in rushing, respectively. The Rams won it in '99, were fourth in rushing, and the 2000 Ravens won it after coming in fifth in rushing. A strong run game and balance were huge factors for all those teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the rushing ranks of the last 20 SB winner and participants?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, DaBoys said:

What are the rushing ranks of the last 20 SB winner and participants?

I'm not looking up last 20 since I don't really think what happened then is relevant today or to this topic.

RUSHING RANKS

2018: LAR - 3  / NE - 5
2017: PHI - 3 / NE - 15
2016: NE - 12 / ATL - 5
2015: DEN - 17 / CAR - 2
2014: NE - 18 / SEA - 1
2013: BAL - 30 / SF - 2
2012: NYG - 14 / NE - 7
2011: GB - 26 / PITT - 13 
2010: NO - 28 / IND - 29 
2009: PITT - 19 / ARZ - 27

The better rushing teams have won 3 of last 10. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, WizardHawk said:

I'm not looking up last 20 since I don't really think what happened then is relevant today or to this topic.

RUSHING RANKS

2018: LAR - 3  / NE - 5
2017: PHI - 3 / NE - 15
2016: NE - 12 / ATL - 5
2015: DEN - 17 / CAR - 2
2014: NE - 18 / SEA - 1
2013: BAL - 30 / SF - 2
2012: NYG - 14 / NE - 7
2011: GB - 26 / PITT - 13 
2010: NO - 28 / IND - 29 
2009: PITT - 19 / ARZ - 27

The better rushing teams have won 3 of last 10. 

 

And 5 of the last 8 SB participants had top FIVE rushing teams. 5 of 8. The four most relevant years. 

6 of the last 10.

And 7 of the last 12 SB participants had top 5 rushing units.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by DaBoys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crazy that this thread is in a Cowboys forum. Of all teams.

 

Also crazy that it's being propelled by fans of Dak Prescott who is often saved by his own ability to run the ball. Something our new OC said he may do more of.

 

The running game matters, and it matters more to some teams than others. Idc what the Saints or Steelers do. Our own data suggests that we are carried by the run game, and have been for decades.

I care more about 50 actual Cowboys games with our current roster than I do about 1,000 games from some other team with a different offense.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Reread the premise of the debate. You have to have a higher ANY/A than your opponent. Just looking at the first two losses, it appears the rapist and tittykisser both had near perfect games. I assume that trend will hold true an apply to all the games. The team with the higher ANY/A has a 70-90% likelihood of winning depending on the time frame you look at.

There is absolutely no stats, evidence that back up that conclusion in a measurable way. If you think I am wrong, you do have the internet. Prove me wrong. Find the rushing stat that correlates to winning/passing better.

link? because as I provided in the first post, the number since the 80's is actually 57%. So I doubt your finding. 

I just googled "winning the rushing battle." And it produced this: (but I have no idea where the numbers come from. I didn't write it.)

https://www.footballperspective.com/winning-the-rushing-battle-and-winning-the-game/

Since 1950, how successful were teams that won the rushing battle? Those teams won 72.9% of the time. That number is 72.7% since 1970, 71.9% since 1990, 71.3% since 2002, and 70.5% over the last 10 years. And the numbers are nearly identical, of course, if we ask the question the other way (among teams that won, how often did they win the rushing battle?).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This was never more apparent than when Zeke was out in 2017, when both Rod Smithand Alfred Morris filled in admirably. Dallas was actually twice as efficient running the ball in the six games that Elliott missed via suspension, averaging +0.04 expected points added (EPA) per run play during that stretch.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-explaining-dallas-cowboys-rb-ezekiel-elliotts-2018-pff-grade

Weird, its almost as if Zeke isnt the reason we win games....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×