SkippyX Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 I was taking a look at a few QBs records when their teams run the ball well vs not and I think I found something significant. The data I collected only covers 2016 to present and only the current teams for a QB but take a look and see if I am on to something. This pretty much destroys the people pretending that its all about passing now and running does not lead to wins. All data for 2016-2019 Dak is 13-18 when Dallas does not run for 130+ yards. He is 25-4 when Dallas runs for 130+ Watson is 9-6 wen his team does not run for 130+ 12-6 when his team runs for 130+ Wilson is 19-12-1 when his team does not run for 130+ 19-8 when 130+ Rodgers is 18-20-1 when his team runs for less than 130 10-0 when they run for 130+ Brees is 15-17 when his team does not run for 130+ 22-1 when they run for 130+ Wentz is 13-22 when Philly does not run for 130+ 15-1 when they run for 130+ Brady is 29-10 when they run for less than 130 16-0 when they run for 130+ Stafford is 23-27-1 when Detroit does not run for 130+ He is 4-1 when Detroit runs for 130+ Trubisky is 13-10 when Chicago runs for less than 130 8-6 when they run for 130+ Goff is 14-19 when the Rams run for less than 130 16-0 when they run for 130+ Cousins is 8-9-1 when the Vikings run for less than 130 He is 8-1 when the Vikings run for 130+ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbs4u Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 (edited) RB don't matter nor the running game, get it right Skippy! Fall in line damnit! 63-2 for these 4 QB. 🍺 Quote Rodgers is 18-20-1 when his team runs for less than 130 10-0 when they run for 130+ Brees is 15-17 when his team does not run for 130+ 22-1 when they run for 130+ Wentz is 13-22 when Philly does not run for 130+ 15-1 when they run for 130+ Brady is 29-10 when they run for less than 130 16-0 when they run for 130+ Edited November 30, 2019 by Nabbs4u 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted November 30, 2019 Author Share Posted November 30, 2019 (edited) Note that this treats 129 as bad and 130 as good so its not perfect. It also lumps 200 yard rushing games in with 135 yard games or 125 yard games in with 35 yard rushing games. Still, the winning percentage shift is pretty drastic and the only QBs I have found that are outliers so far are Trubisky (Nagy is allergic to the run so that might be a factor) Foles in Philly (he never got 130+ run support in his 8 regular season starts) Even guys like Brady who are still incredible with bad rushing days 29-10 are much better with run support 16-0 with the 130+ run game. Edited November 30, 2019 by SkippyX 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamondbull424 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 Interesting explains why Lamar has a QB record of 15-3 as the Ravens have never rushed for under 130 yards with Lamar Jackson as a starter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted November 30, 2019 Author Share Posted November 30, 2019 Andy Dalton is 11-30-1 when his team does not run for at least 130. He is 7-2 when the Bengals run for 130+ Josh Allen is 7-6 when the Bills don't run for at least 130. He is 7-3 when the Bills run for 130+ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucsfan333 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 Are teams winning because they rush for so much, or are teams already winning so they run the ball enough to eclipse that threshold? 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted November 30, 2019 Author Share Posted November 30, 2019 1 minute ago, diamondbull424 said: Interesting explains why Lamar has a QB record of 15-3 as the Ravens have never rushed for under 130 yards with Lamar Jackson as a starter. Also to be fair, sometimes these teams run for 130+ because the QB runs for 90 yards (looking at you Lamar) Either way this is still a run to win league it seems. Brees has that 22-1 vs 15-17 split and he's not much of a runner. Teddy won 4 of his 5 without 130+ for whatever that limited sample is worth. I know the punt return and fumble return vs Seattle had a lot to do with that outcome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted November 30, 2019 Author Share Posted November 30, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, bucsfan333 said: Are teams winning because they rush for so much, or are teams already winning so they run the ball enough to eclipse that threshold? They win because they run effectively before the 4th quarter and in the 4th quarter not just piling it on late. You will on occasion have games where a team runs for 60 yards through 3 quarters and then piles on 100 yards of grind it out in the 4th but those are very rare. They may be more likely in games with defensive TDs or +3 turnover differentials, but those are also fairly rare. Feel free to do the research to prove otherwise but I strongly doubt you will find that many examples. Splits are not loading on Pro Football Reference right now but you can check guys like Kamara, Elliott, and Gurley for yards rushing by quarter. I would guess they have more in the 4th quarter but not even 150% more than any other quarter (they would need 250% or so to fit that theory) Think of Vikings games this year or games like New England vs San Diego in the playoffs. ((or Baltimore vs New England this year) Those teams ran all over the place early and late. In the case of blowouts, teams often run for less yards as they run up the middle to kill clock and maybe aim for 24 yards rushing with two 1st downs on 8 plays to kill the last 4 minutes. There are also the -1 yard kneels in those cases at the very end. Edited November 30, 2019 by SkippyX 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlowe22 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 If you run for that many yards, your oline is probably dominating the game. If your oline dominates the game, you better win the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted November 30, 2019 Author Share Posted November 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said: If you run for that many yards, your oline is probably dominating the game. If your oline dominates the game, you better win the game. agreed you also open things up for play action vs desperate overcompensating Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyMouse07 Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 12 minutes ago, SkippyX said: agreed you also open things up for play action vs desperate overcompensating You don’t need to run the ball well for play action to work. That has been shown plenty of times. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyMossIsBoss Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 First I just want to say I am not on board with the recent trend from stat guys to preach that the running game doesn't matter, however, this type of argument OP is presenting has been thoroughly debunked. Classic case of correlation ≠ causation here. There's 2 things going on here: The bigger the lead, the more likely you are to be running the football. I think we can all agree on that? When a lead is big, the name of the game is to protect the football and drain the clock. Running for 130 yards is a sign of the offense having a good day. When the offense is having a good day, a team usually wins. Over the past 3 years teams have a 73% win rate when they rush for 130+ yards. In the same span they have a 71% win rate when they have a completion rate above 70%. Does this mean short and safe passes lead to winning? Or rather, does this win rate signify teams in control of a game take less shots + a high completion rate signifies a good day for the offense? See what I'm getting at? When it's broken down on a play by play basis, compared across the board to identical downs/distance/scores, running has shown to be less effective than passing plain and simple, if we are to go the pure statistical route. You don't have to go beyond the 1st page of google to find some quality write ups on this. https://blog.minitab.com/blog/the-statistics-game/correlation-is-not-causation-why-running-the-football-doesnt-cause-you-to-win-games-in-the-nfl https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-nfl-teams-make-and-win-in-the-playoffs/ https://thepowerrank.com/2018/09/24/the-surprising-truth-about-passing-and-rushing-in-the-nfl/ https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2838888-the-nfl-nerds-are-right-that-the-running-game-is-overrated-but-it-still-matters (summary of what stat guys have been saying, but a very sensible conclusion) Like I said, I think they've gone too far when they say "the run game doesn't matter", firstly I think they are simply coming to poor conclusions. They are analyzing data in a league where the ideal is still a 50/50 run/pass ratio. Unless they could point to teams that passed 95% of the time and were successful, it is foolish and click-baity to bluntly suggest the run game doesn't matter. Secondly, and this is where I go opposite the stat guys and will trigger them, I think an 11 on 11 sport like football is far too difficult to truly nail down with statistics, and with something like running the football especially, there are so many human elements that can't be truly measured or don't show up as trends yet simply make practical sense (physical toll on defenders, implications of an OL getting push at LOS, morale, etc.). Run game matters, just not as much as some people think, that's what I would tell people. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted November 30, 2019 Author Share Posted November 30, 2019 9 hours ago, MightyMouse07 said: You don’t need to run the ball well for play action to work. That has been shown plenty of times. This is a bit of oversimplification. It works either way but it works better if the other team has to sell out with safeties as well as linebackers to stop the run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted November 30, 2019 Author Share Posted November 30, 2019 Also oversimplification above by Moss: If you can dominate in the run game then you are more likely to succeed in short yardage conversions and the red zone. The stats back up that running is more effective there. Teams that run for 130+ probably have a higher rate of 70% completions because they don't have to resort to lots of risky throws. So a team that is having a good day passing but settles for 3 field goals vs a team that is blowing people off the line and getting TDs. Which do you prefer? Wentz is 7-5 when he has 70%+ completions. (14-11 when above 65%) The Eagles ran for 130+ in 2 of those 12 (both wins) They also ran for 120+ in 4 of the other wins. When Wentz had 70+% and his team ran for under 130, he was 5-5. When his team ran for under 120 he was 3-5. Dak is 18-2 when he has 70%+ completions (24-8 above 65%) The Cowboys ran for 130+ in 12 of those 20. (all wins) To be fair, they ran for 129 vs the Jets but came up short on the 2 point conversion at the end (a pass attempt) Cousins is 13-5-1 with the Vikings when he is at or over 70% completions. (14-6-1 when over 65%) He is 7-0 when his team also runs for 130+ (9-0 when they run for 120+) and 6-5-1 when he has 70% or more but his team does not run for 130 (4-5-1 if they don't run for 120+) Derek Carr is 11-12 when he has 70%+ completions Oakland ran for 130+ in 3 of the wins and 3 of the losses. I did notice that the other team ran for 130+ in 8 of those 12 losses. The Raiders even managed to only score 3 points in 3 of Carr's 70%+ games. There is still a lot to explore, but its pretty clear so far that: being +2 in turnovers directly leads to winning running for 130+ directly leads to winning completing 70% of passes leads to winning if you also run for 130+ (120+ is pretty good too) throwing for 300+ has almost no relation to winning Wentz is 4-10 / Dak is 7-3 / Cousins is 16-14-1 / Dalton is 15-11-1 / You want to come up with something like throwing for 2+ TDs without a pick leads to winning then sign me up. Dak is 16-0 Wentz is 10-5 Dalton is 20-7 (entire career) Cousins is 18-7 (entire career) Carr is 19-7 (entire career) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted November 30, 2019 Author Share Posted November 30, 2019 I have not thoroughly researched this but early findings look like there is a very strong correlation. I will take a look at Goff later but I am guessing he fits in as well as another QB who is good when things are perfect. I'd also like to look into older Brees in New Orleans to see if this still holds true before 2016 (I would guess so because they almost always had good runners) I will also dig into the crazy passing years like Brady 2007, Manning 2004 and 2013, and Rodgers 2011 to see if they did not need the run support because they were just that dominant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.