Jump to content

Run Game is largely irrelevant


Matts4313

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, SkippyX said:
On 6/16/2019 at 11:14 PM, Matts4313 said:

PS: Cowboys have a 60% win rate when Zeke rushes over 100. They have an 80% win rate when Dak has even a mediocre game. 

This is an absolute lame and pathetic lie. I gave you the numbers in this thread.

The Cowboys are 15-4 when Zeke rushes for 100 yards.

  • That is a 79% win rate.

How about this:

The Cowboys are 16-10 when relying on Dak's passing (30 or more passes)

  • That is a 61.5% win rate

Looks as though someone might of accidentally flipped his numbers to fit the agenda? Could be wrong?

Why it didn't dawn on him that the Cowboys somehow winning 8 out of 10 games with mediocre QB play by Dak wasn't a red flag......, you got me?

Well played Skippy.👏👏

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manning's Broncos were 41-5 (89.1%)  when outrushing their opponents

  • They were 14-12  (53.8%) when the other team outrushed them

 

The 2018 Patriots were 12-0 (100%) when outrushing their opponents.

  • They were 2-5 (28.6%) when the other team outrushed them.

The 2017 Eagles were 14-0 (100%) when outrushing their opponents.

  • They were 2-3 (40%) when the other team outrushed them

The 2016 Patriots were 13-0 (100%) when outrushing the other team

  • They were 3-2 (60%) when the opponent ourushed them
  • The Super Bowl was even

The 2014 Patriots were 8-1 (89%) when outrushing their opponents.

  • They were 7-3 (70%) when the other team outrushed them

The 2013 Seahawks were 13-2 (86.7%) when outrushing their opponents

  • They were 3-1 (75%) when the other team outrushed them
    • Including Kaep's 4 turnover NFCCG to oblivion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SkippyX said:

This is an absolute lame and pathetic lie. I gave you the numbers in this thread.

The Cowboys are 15-4 when Zeke rushes for 100 yards.

  • That is a 79% win rate.

How about this:

The Cowboys are 16-10 when relying on Dak's passing (30 or more passes)

  • That is a 61.5% win rate

 

The Cowboys are 32-7 over the last 3 years when they outrush their opponents.

  • That's an 82.1% win rate

They are 2-10 when the other team outrushes them

  • That's a 16.7 win rate

 

Turnovers are 1st in importance

  • Rushing is second
  • Passing is a distant 3rd

 

 

 

That was the numbers from last year.

5-3 when Zeke rushed over 100

11-3 when Dak had a AY/A of 6+

The argument about passing was never based on bulk. Maybe reread the OP over and over until you finally understand it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SkippyX said:

Manning's Broncos were 41-5 (89.1%)  when outrushing their opponents

  • They were 14-12  (53.8%) when the other team outrushed them

 

The 2018 Patriots were 12-0 (100%) when outrushing their opponents.

  • They were 2-5 (28.6%) when the other team outrushed them.

The 2017 Eagles were 14-0 (100%) when outrushing their opponents.

  • They were 2-3 (40%) when the other team outrushed them

The 2016 Patriots were 13-0 (100%) when outrushing the other team

  • They were 3-2 (60%) when the opponent ourushed them
  • The Super Bowl was even

The 2014 Patriots were 8-1 (89%) when outrushing their opponents.

  • They were 7-3 (70%) when the other team outrushed them

The 2013 Seahawks were 13-2 (86.7%) when outrushing their opponents

  • They were 3-1 (75%) when the other team outrushed them
    • Including Kaep's 4 turnover NFCCG to oblivion.

You really dont understand the argument do you? And finding 6 random years does nothing but prove you dont understand the argument

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think I have ever seen someone post so much in a thread and not understand the premise of the thread than @SkippyX.

Saying that one team runs more or passes more is literally addressed in the OP:

Quote
  • Your goal should be to have an efficient passing game (High completion, low sacks and turn overs). 
  • Bulk passing does not matter.
Quote
  • Running efficiently (YPC) doesnt make you win more or pass better
  • Bulk running (YPG) doesnt make you win more or pass better

So in very simple words I hope you can follow along with:

You can run 100 times. But it wont matter nearly as much as how efficient (ANY/A) your passing game is.

You can pass 100 times.  But it wont matter nearly as much as how efficient (ANY/A) your passing game is.

 

You can have a viable strategy of running a lot, if you think that you can create a efficient pass game along with it. But there is no measurable statistic that shows running alot directly effects ANY/A. So your passing strategy will be efficient (or not) on its own merits. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2018 Pats => 6th in ANY/A, 5th in total rush yards, 17th in YPC

2017 Eagles => 6th in ANY, 3rd in total rush yards, T4-7th in YPC

2016 Pats => 2nd in ANY, 7th in total rush yards, 24th in YPC

2014 Pats => 8th in ANY, 18th in total rush yards, 23rd in YPC

2013 Hawks => 7th in ANY, 4th in total rushing, 12th in YPC

 

Notice how rushing is all over the place but ANY/A stays right in the ~#5 range? 

Now, it would be even better if we could find ANY/A over opponent. Because as stated in the OP, that is the true measure. For example if you are at #6, but your average opponent is #11, good chance you win most of your games (which would increase your bulk rush numbers). There is a strong correlation between teams that have high ANY/A and 4th quarter rushing attempts. But as its been pointed out, there is a low correlation between high attempts in a <7 point game and winning.

So once again, rushing doesnt help you win. Rushing is more closely measured as an effect of you already winning due to passing, then it is as the reason you won. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nabbs4u said:

Looks as though someone might of accidentally flipped his numbers to fit the agenda? Could be wrong?

Why it didn't dawn on him that the Cowboys somehow winning 8 out of 10 games with mediocre QB play by Dak wasn't a red flag......, you got me?

Well played Skippy.👏👏

The Cowboys are:

22-1 when Dak is 8+ AY/A => 97% win rate. 

32-3 when Dak is 6+ AY/A => 91% win rate. 

1-12 when Dak is <6 AY/A =>  <10% win rate

 

You want to know why? BECAUSE PASSING EFFICIENCY IS HIGHLY CORRELATED TO WINNING.

Edited by Matts4313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much some of this will change as the defenses become faster and lighter to stop the pass.  Basically playing what we call the dime as the base defense.  Teams that can show 3 WR 1RB and run or pass out of that situation could have the advantage if the defenses do not have a fat body run stuffier in the middle.  Similar to the NE defense that has 2 TEs that can block or catch passes.  Gronk will be shown to be an amazing unicorn for the NFL.

 

The Ravens are going to be an interesting proof of that this year.  If they could pass they might be really dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the title.  

The run game is definitely not irrelevant.  Without it, you've got a bunch of 1 dimensional teams in the NFL. Without it, people wouldn't draft Defensive Linemen and LBs, they'd only draft DBs and they'd run 11 of them every play.

The running game is  a significant part of the NFL, however, it's easier to find good RBs these days so they're less valued in the draft.  The passing game will always succeed due to a successful running game and vise versa.  They go hand in hand, always have, always will.  Even if the ratio's change, it doesn't make one or the other irrelevant.  

It also doesn't make it irrelevant that Dak is overrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jebrick said:

I wonder how much some of this will change as the defenses become faster and lighter to stop the pass.  Basically playing what we call the dime as the base defense.  Teams that can show 3 WR 1RB and run or pass out of that situation could have the advantage if the defenses do not have a fat body run stuffier in the middle.  Similar to the NE defense that has 2 TEs that can block or catch passes.  Gronk will be shown to be an amazing unicorn for the NFL.

 

The Ravens are going to be an interesting proof of that this year.  If they could pass they might be really dangerous.

Again, as long as you can create an efficient pass game, you dont have to throw in bulk numbers. So if that means throwing out of 2 tight end looks, or using a RB in the screen game against nickle/dime, that works just as well. 

2 hours ago, wwhickok said:

I read the title.  

The run game is definitely not irrelevant.  Without it, you've got a bunch of 1 dimensional teams in the NFL. Without it, people wouldn't draft Defensive Linemen and LBs, they'd only draft DBs and they'd run 11 of them every play.

The running game is  a significant part of the NFL, however, it's easier to find good RBs these days so they're less valued in the draft.  The passing game will always succeed due to a successful running game and vise versa.  They go hand in hand, always have, always will.  Even if the ratio's change, it doesn't make one or the other irrelevant.  

It also doesn't make it irrelevant that Dak is overrated.

How about read the OP, the half dozen articles from multiple website backed by research, the thread with back and forth debate and then come back with an intelligent thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

How about read the OP, the half dozen articles from multiple website backed by research, the thread with back and forth debate and then come back with an intelligent thought

Right, because what idiot would ever think that success running the ball can play a factor in team success? 

What a stupid post by @wwhickok. Clearly he is unintelligent. 

Let's not act like football can be quantified in statistics. Probably a big part of the reason that you can't find a singular stat to 'disprove' your outlandish claim. 

Running the ball is important. I can't believe people are even having this conversation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, N4L said:

Right, because what idiot would ever think that success running the ball can play a factor in team success? 

What a stupid post by @wwhickok. Clearly he is unintelligent. 

Let's not act like football can be quantified in statistics. Probably a big part of the reason that you can't find a singular stat to 'disprove' your outlandish claim. 

Running the ball is important. I can't believe people are even having this conversation

Quote
cor·re·la·tion
/ˌkôrəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
 
  1. a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.

You arent helping your cause here buddy. You can run a lot as part of a plan to have a conservative, but efficient passing game. That was literally the Cowboys strategy. But at the end of the day, the most important factor is efficient passing. Not bulk passing. Not bulk/efficient running. Neither of those things are strongly correlated with winning. 

Edited by Matts4313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wwhickok said:

I posted an opinion on the subject of the thread

What is the subject of the thread? Because if you are simply going by the thread title than you arent doing it any justice. 

Admittedly saying the "rushing stats have a low correlation to the outcome of a game" is much less catchy, but if you read the thread you would understand thats the premise. 

The only highly correlated stat between football and winning is ANY/A. A passing stat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matts4313 said:

What is the subject of the thread? Because if you are simply going by the thread title than you arent doing it any justice. 

Admittedly saying the "rushing stats have a low correlation to the outcome of a game" is much less catchy, but if you read the thread you would understand thats the premise. 

The only highly correlated stat between football and winning is ANY/A. A passing stat. 

Ill post a more thorough post later. I get where youre coming from and i have less of an issue with your response than the other guys.

I think its fair to argue the run game is less relevant in todays game than previous era's for sure and as you stated, a lot of the sources share a similar sentiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...