Dak Thread....still debating, beating a dead horse

[Matts4313]

23 minutes ago, TheStarStillShines said:

Giving Newton the credit for the Patriots beating the Ravens is pure idiocy, considering the Patriots ran the ball 39 times and Newton threw a total of 17 passes. The Pats' defence also played exceptionally well. If Dallas had NE's defence, maybe they win more games when Dak was healthy. But hey, let's blame the QB for not stopping the opposition from scoring. 

Its so dumb the lengths that some are going to. Acting like wins are totally a QB stat. Baltimore had 3 fumbles, an INT. Pats had multiple pass deflections and held them to 17 points. 

Acting like Dak couldnt attempt 17 throws for 115 yards is ridiculous. I cant believe anyone in their right mind believes that. 

[Matts4313]

[plan9misfit]

52 minutes ago, TheStarStillShines said:

Giving Newton the credit for the Patriots beating the Ravens is pure idiocy, considering the Patriots ran the ball 39 times and Newton threw a total of 17 passes. The Pats' defence also played exceptionally well. If Dallas had NE's defence, maybe they win more games when Dak was healthy. But hey, let's blame the QB for not stopping the opposition from scoring. 

So, the running game matters. A certain person whose name rhymes with “Hats” claimed that the running game doesn’t matter.

[TheStarStillShines]

4 minutes ago, plan9misfit said:

So, the running game matters. A certain person whose name rhymes with “Hats” claimed that the running game doesn’t matter.

It's a team sport. We all know that. Blaming a single player for the team's horrendous season seems ridiculous at best. Well, if Dak was doing his best Babe Laufenberg impression, then complaints would be justified. But the reality is, he was performing at an All-Pro level while most of the team - from Zeke to the entire defence to the coaching staff - were under performing or just flat out sucked. 

[Matts4313]

18 minutes ago, plan9misfit said:

So, the running game matters. A certain person whose name rhymes with “Hats” claimed that the running game doesn’t matter.

Would you like me to bump the thread so that you and @The_Slamman can re-read it? Perhaps even attempt to understand what I said? Because I specifically said:

"Your offensive strategy can be to *RUN THE BALL A LOT* or a little, but what will determine who wins 80%+ of the time will be the team with the more efficient QB"

Additionally, I quoted the stat that QBs who throw for 200 yards, 1 TD and No turnovers win almost 90% of games historically. 

Guess what? Cam's efficiency numbers were better than Jacksons. Cams team won the game. PROVING ONCE AGAIN THAT I AM RIGHT.

Edited November 16, 2020 by Matts4313

[Matts4313]

@plan9misfit @The_Slamman

Just because you struggled a year ago, let me try again:

Quote

Point 1: The team that has a better ANY/A (adjusted net yards per an attempt => an advanced passing stat) in any given game wins the vast majority of the time. (EDIT: THE MAIN POINT!)

• Your goal should be to have an efficient passing game (High completion, low sacks and turn overs).  
• Bulk passing does not matter. (EDIT: Which means you can be a bulk run team)
• Defensively you need to make the other team inefficient. 

Point 2: Despite "common knowledge" there is no evidence that running the ball helps passing

• Running efficiently (YPC) doent make you win more or pass better (Edit: Which in turn, means that running inefficiently doesnt make you lose)
• Bulk running (YPG) doesnt make you win more or pass better (Edit: Which in turn, means that running more or less doesnt make you lose)
• Attempts doesnt make you win more or pass better.  (Edit: Which in turn, means that running more or less doesnt make you lose)
• Running the ball does not set up Play Action Passing. 

Point 3: That doesnt mean that running or running backs arent useful.

• Running short yardage is useful
• RBs who help in the pass game are useful

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

This is a common misinterpretation. That because the run game doesnt have a huge correlation, then you should pass every single play. 

That is *NOT* the findings. 

They have found whether you run 70 times or 7 times, it doesnt matter as much as passing efficiently. The #1 goal should be passing better and stopping the other team from passing well. 

I made it extra big so that you might see it this time. 

[plan9misfit]

10 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

@plan9misfit @The_Slamman

Just because you struggled a year ago, let me try again:

I made it extra big so that you might see it this time. 

Right. Let’s forget about the 170 yards that NE had on the ground and the near 33 minutes of TOP. Rather, let’s look at Newton’s 118 yards because he threw a bunch of none yard completions.

And, boy, that “passing efficiency” stuff has surely worked out well in our win/loss records over the last 3+ years. 

[Matts4313]

18 minutes ago, plan9misfit said:

Right. Let’s forget about the 170 yards that NE had on the ground and the near 33 minutes of TOP. Rather, let’s look at Newton’s 118 yards because he threw a bunch of none yard completions.

And, boy, that “passing efficiency” stuff has surely worked out well in our win/loss records over the last 3+ years. 

Plan, I literally can not say it any more simply. Your strategy *can* be to be a run heavy team. 

Do you understand that?

If yes - move on to this next sentence:

What has the highest correlation to winning is the efficiency of your QB compared to the other QB.

Do you understand that?

If yes - move on to this next sentence:

Bulk stats (Cams 120 yards. 170 yards rushing. QBs 500 yards passing. RBs 200 yard rushing games.) have almost 0 correlation to winning or losing. 

Do you understand that?

If yes - move on to this next sentence:

QBs that had the better pass efficiency win over 80% of the time. That was true last season. That was true last post season. That is true this season. That is true for the Cowboys for the past "3+ years" as you put it. When the Cowboys pass more efficiently than our opponent, we win the vast majority of the time - regardless of what the run game does.

 

Youve literally never refuted a single point that I have made. You just just strawman your own argument. Its because you cant separate the the following:

1. Anecdotal evidence vs 25+ year trends (IE - But what about this 1 game!).

2. That saying the run game has a low correlation to winning *is not the same* as saying you should run 0 times. Its simply saying that running 10 times or running 50 times has no statistical correlation to win probabilities when viewed over the entire NFL for statistically sufficient periods.

 

Until you grasp those two points, you will fail to ever understand what the data says. 

Edited November 16, 2020 by Matts4313

[plan9misfit]

2 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Plan, I literally can not say it any more simply. Your strategy *can* be to be a run heavy team. 

Do you understand that?

If yes - move on to this next sentence:

What has the highest correlation to winning is the efficiency of your QB compared to the other QB.

Do you understand that?

If yes - move on to this next sentence:

Bulk stats (Cams 120 yards. 170 yards rushing. QBs 500 yards passing. RBs 200 yard rushing games.) have almost 0 correlation to winning or losing. 

Do you understand that?

If yes - move on to this next sentence:

QBs that had the better pass efficiency win over 80% of the time. That was true last season. That was true last post season. That is true this season. That is true for the Cowboys for the past "3+ years" as you put it. When the Cowboys pass more efficiently than our opponent, we win the vast majority of the time - regardless of what the run game does.

 

Youve literally never refuted a single point that I have made. You just just strawman your own argument. Its because you cant separate the the following:

1. Anecdotal evidence vs 25+ year trends (IE - But what about this 1 game!).

2. That saying the run game has a low correlation to winning *is not the same* as saying you should run 0 times. Its simply saying that running 10 times or running 50 times has no statistical correlation to win probabilities when viewed over the entire NFL for statistically sufficient periods.

 

Until you grasp those two points, you will fail to ever understand what the data says. 

I understand the data just fine. I just like poking fun at it because the way you initially phrased the topic was so incredibly stupid.

[The_Slamman]

4 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

@plan9misfit @The_Slamman

Just because you struggled a year ago, let me try again:

I made it extra big so that you might see it this time. 

Yep, Matts, it’s just as dumb now as when you said it then.  I guess that makes your post timelessly stupid.  One day the forum will debate which was the stupidest thread ever.  Right now your “the run game does not matter” is tied with “Julius Jones needs to get fatter” thread.  It’s neck and neck.

 

lets not forget some of your lowlights.  ‘The run game does not matter.”  There is no relationship between running the ball and passing the ball.  It doesn’t matter if you run the ball 70 times or 7 times it only matters about the passing efficiency.  And perhaps the dumbest statement EVER... the cowboys in the SB years played better when Emmitt Smith ran poorly.  The sad thing is you really don’t get how stupid all of those statements are.  

Edited November 17, 2020 by The_Slamman

[Matts4313]

9 hours ago, The_Slamman said:

Yep, Matts, it’s just as dumb now as when you said it then.  I guess that makes your post timelessly stupid.  One day the forum will debate which was the stupidest thread ever.  Right now your “the run game does not matter” is tied with “Julius Jones needs to get fatter” thread.  It’s neck and neck.

 

lets not forget some of your lowlights.  ‘The run game does not matter.”  There is no relationship between running the ball and passing the ball.  It doesn’t matter if you run the ball 70 times or 7 times it only matters about the passing efficiency.  And perhaps the dumbest statement EVER... the cowboys in the SB years played better when Emmitt Smith ran poorly.  The sad thing is you really don’t get how stupid all of those statements are.  

And yet, my "dumb" arguments are backed by facts and your counter arguments is backed by.... nothing whatsoever. 

[The_Slamman]

6 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

And yet, my "dumb" arguments are backed by facts and your counter arguments is backed by.... nothing whatsoever. 

Matts, this will be a lesson for you to never argue with a lawyer... let’s start with Emmitt Smith.

https://www.dallascowboys.com/team/roh-emmitt-smith

His value to his team's success can be seen in the clubs' 101-26 mark (93-24 in regular season) when he carried the ball 20-or-more times a game and 65-18 record (58-18 in regular season) when he rushed for 100 yards.

So, the Cowboys won about 80% of the time when Smith played well.  Now, I would love to see your FACTS to support the cowboys actually playing better when Emmitt Smith played poorly.  I’ll wait patiently while you never find them. Like I said then and I’ll say it again now... this was probably the stupidest thing you’ve ever said.

 

Next, your argument whether it doesn’t matter if you rush the ball 70x or 7x is astonishingly stupid.  Why?  Because an NFL has NEVER actually won a game with less than 9 rush attempts.  
 

As far as rushing attempts go, the magic number seems to be nine. If you don't hit that number, then you have no chance of winning in the NFL. Since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970, there have been 20 games where a team had eight carries or less and those 20 teams have gone 0-20. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/buccaneers-break-87-year-old-nfl-record-for-rushing-futility-during-embarrassing-38-3-loss-to-saints/amp/
 

Well, what about rushing the ball 70x in a game?  Does that correlate with winning?  I don’t know if it has ever happened but if it did, the overwhelming answer would be nearly 100%.  I’ll just leave you this nugget...

 

In breaking down win-loss record across the NFL, it appears a very even number in which to make a determination is 25 rushing attempts in a game. In 2019 there have been 242 games an offense has rushed the ball 25 times or more. In these games, the offense has won 74.6% of the time. Therefore, when a defense has given up 25 rushes or more they have only been successful in winning the game 25.4% of the time.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/platform/amp/2019/12/22/21032457/steelers-and-jets-rushing-attempts-on-either-side-of-the-ball-have-been-the-key-to-victory-week-16
 

Sorry, champ, the rushing game DOES MATTER.

[quiller]

OH.. man I just ran out of popcorn.. oh well.....      about the only thing in the main point about "run game doesn't matter"...   situation that I see is false stats is the one regarding running game doesn't effect play action. While I will not argue any stat but I will say IMO to be a effective play action passer besides having a QB who can do the fake well you have to have the "threat" of being able to run the ball well. 

I can not see also this thread ending any time soon.   I guess I am also going to have to watch some Rams games as the Rams are doing much better then I expected and I want to see if that is because Goff all of a sudden developed into a better passer, my guess is they win because Donald dominates the other teams offense and the Rams run a highly "efficient" offense by staying in 3rd and shorts.

Right now just to stay a little on topic I wonder on just how accurate the report on Dak is. I hope for his sake the surgery went well.

Edited November 17, 2020 by quiller
spelling.

[quiller]

36 minutes ago, The_Slamman said:

Matts, this will be a lesson for you to never argue with a lawyer... let’s start with Emmitt Smith.

https://www.dallascowboys.com/team/roh-emmitt-smith

His value to his team's success can be seen in the clubs' 101-26 mark (93-24 in regular season) when he carried the ball 20-or-more times a game and 65-18 record (58-18 in regular season) when he rushed for 100 yards.

So, the Cowboys won about 80% of the time when Smith played well.  Now, I would love to see your FACTS to support the cowboys actually playing better when Emmitt Smith played poorly.  I’ll wait patiently while you never find them. Like I said then and I’ll say it again now... this was probably the stupidest thing you’ve ever said.

 

Next, your argument whether it doesn’t matter if you rush the ball 70x or 7x is astonishingly stupid.  Why?  Because an NFL has NEVER actually won a game with less than 9 rush attempts.  
 

As far as rushing attempts go, the magic number seems to be nine. If you don't hit that number, then you have no chance of winning in the NFL. Since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970, there have been 20 games where a team had eight carries or less and those 20 teams have gone 0-20. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/buccaneers-break-87-year-old-nfl-record-for-rushing-futility-during-embarrassing-38-3-loss-to-saints/amp/
 

Well, what about rushing the ball 70x in a game?  Does that correlate with winning?  I don’t know if it has ever happened but if it did, the overwhelming answer would be nearly 100%.  I’ll just leave you this nugget...

 

In breaking down win-loss record across the NFL, it appears a very even number in which to make a determination is 25 rushing attempts in a game. In 2019 there have been 242 games an offense has rushed the ball 25 times or more. In these games, the offense has won 74.6% of the time. Therefore, when a defense has given up 25 rushes or more they have only been successful in winning the game 25.4% of the time.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/platform/amp/2019/12/22/21032457/steelers-and-jets-rushing-attempts-on-either-side-of-the-ball-have-been-the-key-to-victory-week-16
 

Sorry, champ, the rushing game DOES MATTER.

Well the interesting thing Slam is while it does indeed say Dallas most likely won the game when we were able to get Smith 25 rushes, it also does not contradict at all the point Matts makes as well. This stat says nothing about how "efficient" the QB was in those wins and losses.     its just another interesting stat. just like I am sure the stats say if you give up less then 10 points you will win most your games..   I really don't put much stock in most stats being a math guy myself. 

You want to think its all about the running game and at first blush the 25 attempts seems to say that... but what that stat doesn't say is just how well you rush the ball those 25 times...   logic would tell you if you get to 25 rushes then you have to be running the ball well, but that isn't what that stat says.  Some times you know you get to those 25 attempts late the in game when your passing game has already won the game and you just want to run the clock. Then you get 1-2 drives of say 7 rushes each drive to get you that 25 number. 

In reality I do believe being able to run the ball is important.  HOWEVER>  Just as IMPORTANT and just as strong indicator that you will win is having a more EFFICIENT passing game as Matts would like point out.  For the record these points of view do not contradict each other. AND as a side not IMO a team would have a better chance winning rushing it under ten times who throws the ball more effectively, over a team that rushes the ball 25 times and fumbles the ball away three times. 

PERSONALLY,  I feel the real stat you should be trying to chase is rather then 25 rushes is WINNING the turn over battle.  and yes generally when you win the turn over battle you will be passing the ball more efficient. 

 

[The_Slamman]

2 hours ago, quiller said:

Well the interesting thing Slam is while it does indeed say Dallas most likely won the game when we were able to get Smith 25 rushes, it also does not contradict at all the point Matts makes as well. This stat says nothing about how "efficient" the QB was in those wins and losses.     its just another interesting stat. just like I am sure the stats say if you give up less then 10 points you will win most your games..   I really don't put much stock in most stats being a math guy myself. 

You want to think its all about the running game and at first blush the 25 attempts seems to say that... but what that stat doesn't say is just how well you rush the ball those 25 times...   logic would tell you if you get to 25 rushes then you have to be running the ball well, but that isn't what that stat says.  Some times you know you get to those 25 attempts late the in game when your passing game has already won the game and you just want to run the clock. Then you get 1-2 drives of say 7 rushes each drive to get you that 25 number. 

In reality I do believe being able to run the ball is important.  HOWEVER>  Just as IMPORTANT and just as strong indicator that you will win is having a more EFFICIENT passing game as Matts would like point out.  For the record these points of view do not contradict each other. AND as a side not IMO a team would have a better chance winning rushing it under ten times who throws the ball more effectively, over a team that rushes the ball 25 times and fumbles the ball away three times. 

PERSONALLY,  I feel the real stat you should be trying to chase is rather then 25 rushes is WINNING the turn over battle.  and yes generally when you win the turn over battle you will be passing the ball more efficient. 

 

Quiller, here's what you don't get about Matts.  He doesn't think there is any relationship at all between running the ball and passing the ball.  You and I understand, that if an offense can run the ball, it forces the defense to play more defenders in the box to stop the run... thus opening up passing lanes.  You and I understand that running the ball and TOP are extremely important.  Matts, doesn't see the game that way.  He doesn't think the run game matters.  He only cares about passing efficiency and does not understand that running the ball helps passing efficiency.   Here is a perfect example...

2019 Titans vs Patriots Game... Titans won 20 to 13.  

The rushing totals for the titans was 40 rushes for 201 yards and 1 TD.  The Pats ran the ball 22 for 98 yards and 1 TD.

Derrick Henry ran the ball 34X for 182 yards and 1 TD.  Tannehill completed 8 of 15 for 72 yards with 1 TD and 1 int with a passer rating of 61.

By contrast Tom Brady, completed 20 of 37 passes for 209 yards 0 TDs and 1 int with a passer rating of 59.  

You and I (as well as any other intelligent football fan) would say that the Titans won due to a dominating performance by Derrick Henry.  Matts would say... See, I told you that the more efficient QB won the game.  It's like trying to teach an infant calculus.  Its just over his head.