Run Game is largely irrelevant

[SkippyX]

We all know who the 49ers QB from 2012 - 2016 was

Their ANY/A in those 4 years was:

• 6th (Smith / SJW)
• 7th (SJW)
• 24th (SJW)
• 28th (SJW / Gabbert)
• 24th (SJW / Gabbert)

A fool would point to the 6th and 7th rankings in 2012-2013 and give him a huge contract

• The superior team carried him

 

Its a lot like a team that plays in Texas with the same QB in 2016, 2017, and 2018 ranking

• 3rd
• 16th
• 17th

Please pay the guy 34 million a year!

[tannenballs]

9 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Because statistically you can run play action and never hand it off, and it is effective. You just need the threat of the run. 

The Rams got to the super bowl off of their zone run game and play action

Edited June 22, 2019 by tannenballs

[SkippyX]

What the OP epic fails on is a basic understanding of how football works.

• There is no pass game in a vacuum. Almost no passing game works against dime coverage.
  • You can play 100% dime coverage without worry if the other team has a bad run game.
• Your QB barely has the ball if the other team can run you over with their O-line.

 

Lots of these high ANY/A teams are mobile QBs (or RPO type offenses) where there is great risk of the run game so lots of efficient short yard high completion passes inflate the figures.

• The Mahomes 2018, Brady 2007, Manning 2004, Rogers 2011, Manning 2013 type offenses are the exceptions to the rule.

Play action is so important because you have LBs and safeties playing the run while the pass goes over their heads... duh!

• How is this not obvious to everyone?
• Football is a chess match between the offense and the defense. 

When these ANY/A gods get down big and must pass, they are destroyed more often than not

• Manning 2013 Super Bowl
• Rogers 2011 Divisional
• Manning 2004 vs Patriots

 

 

[SkippyX]

Here are the 5 WCO 49ers SB Winners rushing TD differentials:

• 1981 17 rushing TDs vs 10 allowed +7
• 1984 21 rushing TDs vs 10 allowed +11
• 1988 18 rushing TDs vs 8 allowed +10
• 1989 14 rushing TDs vs 9 allowed +5
• 1994 23 rushing TDs vs 16 allowed +7

Here are the 6 Patriot SB Winners

• 2001 21 rushing TDs vs 15 allowed +6
• 2003 9 rushing TDs vs 10 allowed -1
• 2004 15 rushing TDs vs 9 allowed +6
• 2014 13 rushing TDs vs 6 allowed +7
• 2016 19 rushing TDs vs 6 allowed +13
• 2018 18 rushing TDs vs 7 allowed +11

 

Here are the Dak in ANY/A freefall Cowboys

2016 24 rushing TDs vs 9 allowed +15

• -2 in the playoff game falling behind 21-3 but Dak played really well in a shootout comeback
  • Rodgers just made a great play late

2017 18 rushing TDs vs 7 allowed +11

• +4 in the 6/7 games without Zeke *(treat the bogus week 17 how you want)
• That 6 games stretch started with them getting annihilated 3 times (92-22 combined)
  • This was followed by them beating up on terrible NYG (3-13) and off the rails DC (4-7 after the bye)
  • They also won a close game against 6-10 Oakland
    • It would be a lie to say they were mediocre without Zeke, they were pretty awful
      • 10 loss talent teams can look good against other 10 loss teams (or DC playing like one)
• +7 in the 9 games with Zeke

2018 13 rushing TDs vs 12 allowed +1

• The Seattle(+6 rushing TDs) game was a good case study on the run/ pass deception
  • Seattle was ultra-predictable trying to run into a run defense
  • Dallas was constantly passing on run downs to go against expectations
    • Jason Garrett completely out-coached Pete Carroll
• Got their butts kicked by a Rams team that was +11 in rushing TDs

Edited June 22, 2019 by SkippyX

[childofpudding]

On 6/18/2019 at 11:24 PM, Whicker said:

I’m pretty surprised at the negative responses to this thread. The OP makes a lot of sense with facts that haven’t been disputed outside of poor anecdotal examples. 

This hits home to me as poker player because to me, the way the run game is presented in this thread is similar to bluffing in poker. Bluffing is an absolutely essential dimension of winning poker, but the actual dollar amounts gained from it are largely irrelevant to your overall win. 

The biggest wins in poker come from making hands and getting those hands paid off. Any individual session is going to be defined a win or a loss based on the frequency of making hands and how well they fare (passing efficiency). This can be accomplished by making hands in good spots (strong passing game) and/or by setting opponents up via bluffing (running game). You can certainly bluff more frequently (have a stronger running game), but in actuality it’s more of the threat of being able to successfully bluff in a spot that will contribute to the frequency of being paid. 

There is no ideal balance in poker as a stronger bluffing game will lead to a better showdown game for the most part, but I’ve never seen a poker player (and I’m a professional) who wins solely because of his bluffs. His bluffs only mean something greater to the overall game. Yes, there have been some sessions that would have been losers that were winners because of my bluffs, but they are few and far between and not big wins. The big wins come from doubling with a set, busting somone with AA, etc. 

Same as there is no ideal balance in a football team since it’s all interconnected, but I do fully believe that, like bluffing, the run game (other than running out the clock which is of course a specific situation) is useful only to the extent in which it helps your passing efficiency. 

Neither is the run game largely irrelevant in football nor is bluffing largely irrelevant in poker.

Bluffing in poker is what allows one to get paid off on good hands. Otherwise you build a rep as a tight player who only gets his chips in the middle with premium hands. You dont get paid off there against good players. Bluffing is what causes your opponent to put you on a wider range of hands, which causes them to pay you off more often on your good hands.

I dont think anyone in this thread has argued that the run game is more relevant than the passing game. Of course it is. But calling the run game largely irrelevant is incorrect.

[Whicker]

13 hours ago, childofpudding said:

Neither is the run game largely irrelevant in football nor is bluffing largely irrelevant in poker.

Bluffing in poker is what allows one to get paid off on good hands. Otherwise you build a rep as a tight player who only gets his chips in the middle with premium hands. You dont get paid off there against good players. Bluffing is what causes your opponent to put you on a wider range of hands, which causes them to pay you off more often on your good hands.

I dont think anyone in this thread has argued that the run game is more relevant than the passing game. Of course it is. But calling the run game largely irrelevant is incorrect.

We’re saying the same thing. 

[Matts4313]

Bumping an old thread for an article because it has a lot of useful information that supports my opinion. It breaks down Zekes contract, walks away with the idea that he is actually 4th highest paid (Gurley, Bell, Johnson). But then it gets to the things that are relevant here:

Quote

Do Running Backs Matter?

There is a growing consensus in the analytics community that “running backs don’t matter.” That statement probably shouldn’t be taken literally, but it rests on several pieces that have been empirically established at this point:

• The run game is inefficient compared to the passing game. This is straightforward; NFL teams in 2018 averaged 6.4 net yards per pass attempt (includes lost yardage due to sacks) and 4.4 yards per rushing attempt. Every single team passed more effectively than it threw the ball.
• To the extent the run game does matter, the running back is only one piece; he is not going to go far without quality blockers in front. Johnson led the NFL in touchdowns in 2016, but averaged a paltry 3.6 yards per carry in 2016. Gurley is coming off two First-Team All-Pro seasons, but he averaged 3.2 yards per carry in 2016 with a brutal supporting cast.
• Moreover, rushing efficiency is heavily determined by number of defenders in the box.
• Some running backs are effective pass-catchers, but in general, throwing to running backs is less efficient than throwing to wide receivers or tight ends.
• Play-action passes are perhaps the best plays in football, but there is no correlation between running frequency or efficiency and play-action passing efficiency.
• Lastly, and most importantly, recent history suggests that running backs are one of the easier positions to replace. The Pittsburgh Steelers had success on the ground without Bell, plugging in James Conner when Bell held out for the season. The Los Angeles Rams grabbed C.J. Anderson off the street and watched him perform comparable to Gurley down the stretch when Gurley’s balky knees acted up. The Denver Broncos used a high pick on Royce Freeman only to see undrafted free agent Phillip Lindsay outperform him. Note that this point is difficult to quantify and remains largely anecdotal.
• There are a bevy of other reasons people will offer as to why the running game matters (controlling the clock, wearing down defenses, setting up the pass, etc.); this Twitter thread from Ben Baldwin debunks them individually.

The running game has its place; no one thinks teams can run pass 100% of the time and still be effective, and certain situations (short yardage, goal line, leading big, against light boxes) dictate that a team should run more. Some of the best football minds still place value on running backs, as evidenced by the Seattle Seahawks and New England Patriots using first-round picks on RBs in the 2018 draft. But the evidence is clear that teams should run less and pass more, and that running backs do not have as large a role in offensive performance as commonly believed.

http://insidethepylon.com/nfl/teams-nfl/nfc-east/dallas-cowboys/2019/09/13/45221/

Edited September 13, 2019 by Matts4313

[Hunter2_1]

Having watched our game vs Steelers, it's clear the running game still matters, even though we passed all over them. We came out and run 4 straight running plays, the next posession we came out empty - the Steelers didn't know whether to crap or go blind. We ran straight at Bush quite often, and he got caught bad on a PA to Edelman later in the game

you NEED to show the defense that you will run the ball down their throats (even if you won't or can't). You have to give them that fear.

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Hunter2_1

[Soko]

I get the feeling this is going to turn out like the Kamara thread in Comparisons.

[El Ramster]

On 6/11/2019 at 8:18 AM, Elky said:

The run game still has its place in the NFL; we don't win our sixth Super Bowl without Sony Michel.

You don’t win if the rams offense Is pitiful. 

 

scoring 13 pts is a joke scoring 3 is just not acceptable! It was your defense not your run game that won you the chip. 

[Hunter2_1]

13 minutes ago, ITS_RAMMY_PLAYBOI said:

You don’t win if the rams offense Is pitiful. 

 

scoring 13 pts is a joke scoring 3 is just not acceptable! It was your defense not your run game that won you the chip. 

Rams really needed a run game that night...

[El Ramster]

1 hour ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Rams really needed a run game that night...

No we need Cooks to catch that ball and we need a healthy Kupp 😘

[Art_Vandalay]

2 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Bumping an old thread for an article because it has a lot of useful information that supports my opinion

 

[Danger]

9 minutes ago, ITS_RAMMY_PLAYBOI said:

No we need Cooks to catch that ball and we need a healthy Kupp 😘

The team also needed to be prepared better. Nothing against McVay Belichik just caught him off guard and he along with the team wasn't able to make the appropriate adjustments in the time given.

[whitehops]

i'll give one reason why the run game is important. while passing is more efficient, it is also higher variance. that's what people mean when they say a good run game keeps drives alive. the average completion percentage in the league is roughly 65%, so on 35% of passing plays you gain zero yards. even though on the other 65% you'll gain ~7.5 yards (vs. 4.4 yards per rush), that 35% is a relatively big percentage to gain nothing. 

example: if you throw two incompletions on the first two downs you're facing third and ten, which has a conversion rate of ~25%. if, however, you have two FAILED rushes of three and three yards on first and second down you're facing third and four, which has ~50% conversion rate. again, if you simulate a thousand drives it would probably make more sense to throw the ball every time, even with the defense selling out to defend the pass. the thing is though, in an actual game you only have about 12 drives so you have to be careful to preserve and sustain them, which means taking the conservative approach and rushing appropriately.