Jump to content
Matts4313

Run Game is largely irrelevant

Recommended Posts

A good running game is still important in the NFL but given the short shelf life of running backs you might see more protection of players at that position as time goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pwny I cant get a debate going. I need you to come play devils advocate before I start believing my own BS. I already tried @Malfatron and @SwAg, but they were as useless as I expected.

Find something to prove I am wrong about said topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pats lost to the Broncos in the playoffs because they couldn't run the ball and then made sure they can do it. I think the same kind of happened with the Saints. I look at those two teams and see how important running the ball can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a lot of what you said proves the running game is irrelevant though.  Some of it proves the passing game is more important, but who has ever debated that?  

Second, there is very little to show that a team’s success in the running game influences QB play. And if running doesn’t help you pass, then running does very little to help you win. 

There is more to running the ball than just helping the QB.  Field position, controlling the clock, etc.  Those are undeniably important elements (among dozens of other factors) that go into deciding who wins and loses a game, and running the ball helps tremendously in that regard.  If you have watched the NFL for even just a season, you will probably have watched several games where a team built a sizable lead but due to poor clock management (often because a team refuses to run the ball with any sort of consistency), the other team is given ample chances on offense to string together a comeback. 

Running the ball guarantees you keep the clock moving regardless of the result (sans a turnover, which is also less likely to occur when running as opposed to passing).  I'm not suggesting that all front office and coaches are automatically smarter than every NFL fan just because they are in that position, but these guys have unlimited access to data and film.  If running the ball was as unimportant as a lot of people seem to imply, then surely we would have seen them stop investing in RBs at the top of the draft or teams flat-out stop running the ball.  Obviously passing the ball is king, and if you can't do that well or efficiently at some point your team is probably going to struggle.  But that doesn't mean running the ball isn't important.

Plus, I feel like a lot of the "running the ball isn't important" arguments that get used is because its always done in the framework that running the ball isn't important just because it doesn't help you win at the same kind of consistently as passing the ball does.  But it doesn't make any sense because that is true in every scenario.  In Point 1, you say one of the primary goals should be for defenses to make the other team inefficient in the passing game.  6 of the top 10 teams last year in defensive NY/A didn't make the playoffs; does that lessen the importance of defensive pass defense since it doesn't matter if you can't pass the ball well?  The point is a lot of things tend to seem unimportant or largely irrelevant if you are basing that on how consistently it results in wins relative to passing the ball.

Running the ball is just one of 100 different things that play a role in winning a game.  Some things are more important than others, without a doubt, but it doesn't mean running the ball is irrelevant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you bumped this. I'd be extremely disappointed if this doesn't become the latest FF meme.

Move over "LT is overrated because he might get injured!" Mr "Running game doesn't matter" is the new sheriff in town.

Share this post


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

Thats not the debate. You can run a lot (or little) as part of your plan to pass efficiently. If you run 40 times it effects the win rate little. IF you run 40 times and pass the ball efficiently, you win the game. 

How does this prove running the ball is largely irrelevant?  It's hard to win any game if you don't pass the ball efficiently (and I'm assuming the first part of that reads "if you run 40 times it effects your win rate little if you pass the ball inefficiently" since the flip of the coin is running 40 times and passing efficiently).  If you defend the pass well but don't pass efficiently, your win rate is likely effected very little.  If your offensive line plays well but you don't pass efficiently, your win rate is likely effected very little and/or negatively. 

Is there any scenario or element of the game that doesn't have it's win rate % go up if paired with passing the ball efficiently?  And if not, then is everything outside of passing the ball largely irrelevant?

Edited by iknowcool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Art_Vandalay said:

Glad you bumped this. I'd be extremely disappointed if this doesn't become the latest FF meme.

Move over "LT is overrated because he might get injured!" Mr "Running game doesn't matter" is the new sheriff in town.

You missed "Julius Jones would get faster if he was fat" in the annals of stupid threads.

You can down play this with your arrogant beliefs. Or you can, ya know, use google and show me as an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Matts4313 said:

You can down play this with your arrogant beliefs. Or you can, ya know, use google and show me as an idiot

I think you're doing an outstanding job of proving that all by yourself. I'd rather sit back and enjoy you obsessively seek the approval of just one other person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

Not a lot of what you said proves the running game is irrelevant though.  Some of it proves the passing game is more important, but who has ever debated that?  

 

 

There is more to running the ball than just helping the QB.  Field position, controlling the clock, etc.  Those are undeniably important elements (among dozens of other factors) that go into deciding who wins and loses a game, and running the ball helps tremendously in that regard.  If you have watched the NFL for even just a season, you will probably have watched several games where a team built a sizable lead but due to poor clock management (often because a team refuses to run the ball with any sort of consistency), the other team is given ample chances on offense to string together a comeback. 

Running the ball guarantees you keep the clock moving regardless of the result (sans a turnover, which is also less likely to occur when running as opposed to passing).  I'm not suggesting that all front office and coaches are automatically smarter than every NFL fan just because they are in that position, but these guys have unlimited access to data and film.  If running the ball was as unimportant as a lot of people seem to imply, then surely we would have seen them stop investing in RBs at the top of the draft or teams flat-out stop running the ball.  Obviously passing the ball is king, and if you can't do that well or efficiently at some point your team is probably going to struggle.  But that doesn't mean running the ball isn't important.

Plus, I feel like a lot of the "running the ball isn't important" arguments that get used is because its always done in the framework that running the ball isn't important just because it doesn't help you win at the same kind of consistently as passing the ball does.  But it doesn't make any sense because that is true in every scenario.  In Point 1, you say one of the primary goals should be for defenses to make the other team inefficient in the passing game.  6 of the top 10 teams last year in defensive NY/A didn't make the playoffs; does that lessen the importance of defensive pass defense since it doesn't matter if you can't pass the ball well?  The point is a lot of things tend to seem unimportant or largely irrelevant if you are basing that on how consistently it results in wins relative to passing the ball.

Running the ball is just one of 100 different things that play a role in winning a game.  Some things are more important than others, without a doubt, but it doesn't mean running the ball is irrelevant.  

1st of all - thank you for joining the debate. I appreciate it.

2. You grasp the data, what would you call it if not irrelevant?

1 minute ago, iknowcool said:

How does this prove running the ball is largely irrelevant?  It's hard to win any game if you don't pass the ball efficiently (and I'm assuming the first part of that reads "if you run 40 times it effects your win rate little if you pass the ball inefficiently" since the flip of the coin is running 40 times and passing efficiently).  If you defend the pass well but don't pass efficiently, your win rate is likely effected very little.  If your offensive line plays well but you don't pass efficiently, your win rate is likely effected very little and/or negatively. 

Is there any scenario or element of the game that doesn't have it's win rate % go up if paired with passing the ball efficiently?  And if not, then is everything outside of passing the ball largely irrelevant?

There is only one stat in all of football with a strong relationship to winning. Its ANY/A over opponent. And its the only predictive stat in football. Its kind of a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Art_Vandalay said:

I think you're doing an outstanding job of proving that all by yourself. I'd rather sit back and enjoy you obsessively seek the approval of just one other person.

Then you missed the point. 

I am looking for someone to disprove me with fact, not opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Then you missed the point. 

I am looking for someone to disprove me with fact, not opinion.

It pretty much has to be opinion because teams don't try to win ignoring the running game. They may not lean on it but all teams try to run the ball and stop the run.

All QBs who attempt 71 or more passes in a game lose. Prove me wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thomas5737 said:

It pretty much has to be opinion because teams don't try to win ignoring the running game. They may not lean on it but all teams try to run the ball and stop the run.

All QBs who attempt 71 or more passes in a game lose. Prove me wrong.

Your argument here invalidates the word correlate. 

Share this post


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

2. You grasp the data, what would you call it if not irrelevant?

There is only one stat in all of football with a strong relationship to winning. Its ANY/A over opponent. And its the only predictive stat in football. Its kind of a big deal.

That's the thing though.  Nobody is disputing that.  Passing the ball efficiently and preventing your opponent from passing the ball efficiently will give you a better chance to win, I understand that.

However, just because one part of the game is undeniably the most important, doesn't mean everything else is irrelevant.

Lets use the NBA as an example and how its evolved.  Nowadays, shooting the three is vital.  If you lack perimeter shooters (especially coming off the bench), in all likelihood, you are going to struggle in the playoffs assuming you make it.  So being able to shoot the three and defend the three are extremely important and would be the NBA counterpart to the ANY/A argument (I'm a casual NBA fan so I don't know the #s behind this, but this is just to use as an example anyway).  However, just because the three ball is king doesn't mean a mid-range jumper isn't important anymore.  It doesn't mean post play is irrelevant.  It doesn't mean being able to excel in transition isn't going to help you throughout a game or a series.

Running the ball is the same way.  Hell you could say its just like how post play is in the NBA.  It isn't the most important thing.  And if it is the best thing your team is good at while being absent solid three point shooting, maybe you aren't going to be winning the finals.  But its still relevant and important.  You can't just not be able to put in work in the post, and you can't just not run the ball.  They, like a bunch of other factors that go into a game, mean a lot.  

Edited by iknowcool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

That's the thing though.  Nobody is disputing that.  Passing the ball efficiently and preventing your opponent from passing the ball efficiently will give you a better chance to win, I understand that.

However, just because one part of the game is undeniably the most important, doesn't mean everything else is irrelevant.

Lets use the NBA as an example and how its evolved.  Nowadays, shooting the three is vital.  If you lack perimeter shooters (especially coming off the bench), in all likelihood, you are going to struggle in the playoffs assuming you make it.  So being able to shoot the three and defend the three are extremely important and would be the NBA counterpart to the ANY/A argument (I'm a casual NBA fan so I don't know the #s behind this, but this is just to use as an example anyway).  However, just because the three ball is king doesn't mean a mid-range jumper isn't important anymore.  It doesn't mean post play is irrelevant.  It doesn't mean being able to excel in transition isn't going to help you throughout a game or a series.

Running the ball is the same way.  Hell you could say its just like how post play is in the NBA.  It isn't the most important thing.  And if it is the best thing your team is good at while being absent solid three point shooting, maybe you aren't going to be winning the finals.  But its still relevant and important.  You can't just not be able to put in work in the post, and you can't just not run the ball.  They, like a bunch of other factors that go into a game, mean a lot.  

Isnt that the point? That there is literally only one subset of data that correlates strongly over 1000's of data points?

And if your argument is that you dont agree with the word irrelevant, than give me a better word for something that hast an extremely low correlation with winning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I took the winning percentage of all teams in the league last year, their Rushing Yards per game, and their cumulative passer rating.

8nipY6H.png

KiqjlHE.png

As you can see, both show a notable correlation. But the correlation factor, the first value in the binomial equation, (the one with the x) is in fact stronger in terms of rushing yards per game, than is it on the passer rating one. 

Now, now, now. Taking into account that Passer Rating typically has less variation in sheer number alone. 

The variance in Rushing YPG vs Winning percentage is 55% (=49.6/89.4), where the Passer Rating is 63% (=44.8/70.4). Meaning that an improvement in passer rating is in fact more likely to lead to more wins than an improvement in rushing yardage. 

However the discrepancy Matts wants to make of rushing not correlating with winning, is silly. The pass game is more important, by a margin, but the run game is FAR from unimpactful.

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



×