Basically, there is pretty much no ordinary situation in which running produces better results than passing. If a team is more than 10 points ahead in the second quarter, running has seemed to do OK. And that’s about it. Even situations where running a lot is pretty standard — like up fewer than 10 points in the third or fourth quarters — passing has done substantially better.
But the bigger argument is:
Quote:
the quality of your running back — at least by conventional measures like how many yards they gain — is of secondary importance.
This is because even a great rushing attack is still worse at picking up yards than even a mediocre passing attack. The all-pro running back may gain a lot of yards as his team funnels its offense through him, but many (or even most) of those yards are picked up in spots — like when a team is slightly up or down in the third quarter — where passing would have been better
especially on a team like the Giants where we are much better at passing the ball than running. We should run only as much as we have to keep the defense somewhat honest.
"Running to win" is why there are so many blown leads. They havent stopped you all day, so youre going to give them 5 straight defensive stops doing the opposite of what got you the lead? Ok....
When you can runt he ball. If you average 2 YPC (yards per carry) all game, then running out the clock is dumb. If you average 5 YPC then maybe you need to keep running. As a coach you need to remember to eliminate long runs from your average. For instance, when you rush for 160 yards on 27 carries but had an 85 yard TD run, the YPC is 2.88 not the 5.92 YPC that includes the 85 yard rush. That was an anomaly.
Any Falcons fans think their team ran the ball too much in the 4th quarter of that game?
Or it's a non-anecdotal analysis. What are the chances that the super bowl would play out like that again? what are the chances ATL would have blown the lead rushing the ball, or with a more balanced attack?
but a game that comes to mind is when Perrey Fewel only dressed 2 or 3 DTs so he could sell out against the pass when playing the Colts. The Colts, not known for their run game, ran the rock straight up our fucking asses. Peyton is still Peyton and got his, bit I remember them just bull rushing us on the ground. Probably their highest rushing total of the year. Giants vs Colts 2010 - ( New Window )
If a team has a shitty QB but a great RB I would think it's different than a team where it's the opposite.
How would it be different?
Can you name a team where their rushing yards per attempt is higher than their passing yards per attempt over the course of 16 games?
Even the most god awful NFL passing offenses on average throw for 5 yards per pass no matter who the QB of that team is. There are only a handful of teams who can run the ball statistically over 16 games at 5 yards a pop no matter who the running back is.
that runs so against football conventional wisdom it's going to take time to sink in. But in fact, as that article says, this has been the trend for a while.
Smart coaches going back a long time have understood that the short passing game is basically the same as an old-fashioned running game. Run high-percentage routes with little chance of interception, keep the QB clean for a 3-step drop and get the ball out fast, pick up a few yards, move the chains, go methodically down the field. So you have a few incompletions. That's no worse than a "no gain" run, and there's less risk of negative yardage.
But we're all used to seeing a running game or a "balanced" offense, so, we wonder what's wrong when we don't. Or we complain that it's broken and needs to be fixed. But what if it's not broken, and doesn't need fixing? What if it's better this way than the old way?
Similar: The stats that say that most of the time teams should go for it on fourth down instead of punting. If you go for it and it doesn't work, the world howls that you're an idiot. You can get fired that way. If you follow the conventional wisdom and it doesn't work, well, you went by the book.
Only 2 areas left where runnign the ball is important Â
that's basically the take of the under-25 set, it's like saying you like pop music and sometimes play rock and roll if it helps you get some snookie.
But totally ignoring jazz, classical, R+B and so forth.
There is a whole universe of running plays that can be used to effect not only how the front 7 that's facing you has to act, but will effect their willingness and ability to do stuff against you in the pass over the course of the game, and not just relating to play action, as they respond to what your OL has been doing.
a team should be able to drive and score starting from its 20 Â
it ignores the basics of the game, the risk\reward for passing vs. running. Yes passing is more productive but increases the risks of losing the possesion.
that's basically the take of the under-25 set, it's like saying you like pop music and sometimes play rock and roll if it helps you get some snookie.
But totally ignoring jazz, classical, R+B and so forth.
There is a whole universe of running plays that can be used to effect not only how the front 7 that's facing you has to act, but will effect their willingness and ability to do stuff against you in the pass over the course of the game, and not just relating to play action, as they respond to what your OL has been doing.
Maybe you can give us 5 straight posts about your brain dribble on play construction.
it ignores the basics of the game, the risk\reward for passing vs. running. Yes passing is more productive but increases the risks of losing the possesion.
Huh - I thought the gist of the argument made was that win% increases more when passing than when running, which would be taking into consideration the risks of turning the ball over. On this thread people simplified that argument down to average YPC vs. average YPA, but the article itself based it on win%.
it ignores the basics of the game, the risk\reward for passing vs. running. Yes passing is more productive but increases the risks of losing the possesion.
I would hazard to say that those risks are lower than most realize. The average team threw 13 interceptions last year. I would bet most of those were thrown either in situations where the team was behind and taking risks to try to come back or else on long passes trying to make a big play. In a situation with a lead, I would bet that the interception rate is much lower.
Also, rushing is not without risks. One of the biggest is the likelihood of loss of possession via punt.
One of the main reasons for running the football, especially in today's NFL is to force to defense to respect the run, which, as a result, makes it easier to pass. The article disregards this key reason for running the football.
Obviously with rule changes, passing is easier, and therefore, teams tend to pass more. But without the threat of the run, passing would be a lot more difficult. A good running back is still very important.
One of the main reasons for running the football, especially in today's NFL is to force to defense to respect the run, which, as a result, makes it easier to pass. The article disregards this key reason for running the football.
Obviously with rule changes, passing is easier, and therefore, teams tend to pass more. But without the threat of the run, passing would be a lot more difficult. A good running back is still very important.
One of the main reasons for running the football, especially in today's NFL is to force to defense to respect the run, which, as a result, makes it easier to pass. The article disregards this key reason for running the football.
Obviously with rule changes, passing is easier, and therefore, teams tend to pass more. But without the threat of the run, passing would be a lot more difficult. A good running back is still very important.
Not at all:
"Of course, running the football has ancillary benefits, such as burning time off the clock, avoiding turnovers, gaining positive yards more consistently, picking up shorter yardage a higher percentage of the time, keeping the defenses honest, and so on."
And
"Running backs and rushing may still be an important part of the game, so long as you aren’t trying to use it to pick up a bunch of yards on the ground. "
If you knew your opponent was not going to run the ball, you might set up a defense with 2 down line men, 5 LBs, flood the secondary with DBs, & dare the QB to throw the ball.
Does this sound rediculous? That is exactly what the Giants did to Jim Kelly and Buffalo in SuperBowl XXV. And how did that turn out?
Of course it also helped to have 4 great LBs & aren't you supposed to get your best players on the field at the same time if possible?
My point is that statistics do not tell the whole story. You have to react to game situations.
''RE: huygens and 81
Gatorade Dunk : 5/15/2017 8:02 pm : link : reply to me
''
Maybe you can give us 5 straight posts about your brain dribble on play construction..."
I do like what Natek and others said. Making more sense, the interplay between run and pass on O is the essence of offensive football. Its the 101, if you will, the freshman year stuff.
People will try to turn football into a big 'look at me' showboating game of ally oop, until they have to face a real team, with an old school coach, then the trends will reverse.
For all those namby pamby pretty boy millenials here who want to pass all day and don't value OL play, I give you exhibit 1:
The Dallas Cowboys, a real line and run team, and the NFCE East team to beat.
the concept this article is showing, but it way oversimplifies how the NFL works. As teams start shifting to more and more passing the league adjusts and draft tendencies shift. You end up with record breaking draft pick numbers in the defensive backfield, you get linebackers who are small in stature but run like gazelles, undersized d-lineman that specialize in the pass rush; then all the sudden you have a defense that's built to be exploited by the run. We've seen this story for quite some time, everyone ran a 4-3, then 3-4 came in vogue because you couldn't anticipate where the pass rush was coming from, then we saw the rise of the athletic tight end who the 4 linebacker set could not cover, now we have safeties playing linebacker who can cover the tight end, the story goes on an on. You cant extrapolate results and say "look, the more we pass the more yards per attempt we are getting therefore we will get more yards passing more and more".
There's no magic wand that says Pass the ball 90% of the time and you will win. Teams adjust, the league adjusts, and then someone like the Cowboys can exploit the fact that the league has become too specialized at stopping the pass that they can no longer handle a simple run game run behind big strong people.
get in the way. Yes, the average yards per pass attempt are higher than the average yards per rush attempt, but the statistics don't always take into account strategy. It's like adopting the rule of never punting because in the long run the statistics bear out it is the best outcome. In a football game and in a 16 game season, the short-term results can have a much wider variance than the expected long-term results, especially in crucial late-game drives.
We saw it in the SB last year, but we've seen it several other times in recent years where a team leading leaves too much time on the clock for a game-losing drive, and it is often because they've tried an ill-advised pass that saves the opposition 35 seconds. This was Giants fans main complaints against TC in losses to Dallas and Atlanta in 2015. It has been a basis for complaints for Packers fans where for every game clinching throw rodgers has, an incompletion stops the clock - it led directly to two of their losses last year.
The odds are that any given pass play is going to lead to more yards than any given running play - but that's basic thinking. It doesn't factor things in like the importance of 20-45 seconds in the latter stages of the game for the positives a pass provides.
even in regular, non end of game game play, the seemingly 'small loss' of T.O.P., your DL gets worn down, especially the DTs, over the course of the long season.
Last season, ours was great, but we saw that at the end, not as much juice.
which seems to have grown roots in most fan's vernacular:
Quote:
The Dallas Cowboys, a real line and run team, and the NFCE East team to beat.
Since 2008, the Cowboys have finished 3rd or 4th in the division more times than they've finished 1st or 2nd, yet they are consistently called the team to beat. I really don't get it.
One dimensional RBs, no matter how special they are at that one dimension, don't win championships. Barry Sanders was one of the greatest runners of all time, but that's all he was. And the result was a Lions team that never (or rarely) made the playoffs.
The RB who can both pass-block and catch the ball downfield isn't just necessary for 3rd downs, he is necessary on 1st and 2nd down as well.
the concept this article is showing, but it way oversimplifies how the NFL works. As teams start shifting to more and more passing the league adjusts and draft tendencies shift. You end up with record breaking draft pick numbers in the defensive backfield, you get linebackers who are small in stature but run like gazelles, undersized d-lineman that specialize in the pass rush; then all the sudden you have a defense that's built to be exploited by the run. We've seen this story for quite some time, everyone ran a 4-3, then 3-4 came in vogue because you couldn't anticipate where the pass rush was coming from, then we saw the rise of the athletic tight end who the 4 linebacker set could not cover, now we have safeties playing linebacker who can cover the tight end, the story goes on an on. You cant extrapolate results and say "look, the more we pass the more yards per attempt we are getting therefore we will get more yards passing more and more".
There's no magic wand that says Pass the ball 90% of the time and you will win. Teams adjust, the league adjusts, and then someone like the Cowboys can exploit the fact that the league has become too specialized at stopping the pass that they can no longer handle a simple run game run behind big strong people.
This is kind of what I meant with my 3:16 post. Belichick recognizes tendencies and overvaluation/undervaluations and stays ahead of trends developing. There is a reason he was loading up on TE a few years back and there might just be a reason that he's got so many legit running backs on his roster now.
Mostly - when teams load up to take one thing away from him he's preparing to beat you another way.
And no one doubts that little Bill is the league's most successful trendsetter.
One of the main reasons for running the football, especially in today's NFL is to force to defense to respect the run, which, as a result, makes it easier to pass. The article disregards this key reason for running the football.
Obviously with rule changes, passing is easier, and therefore, teams tend to pass more. But without the threat of the run, passing would be a lot more difficult. A good running back is still very important.
The article doesn't disregard that. In fact it states that the primary, if not only, reason to run the ball is to force the defense to respect the run.
I would hazard to say that those risks are lower than most realize. The average team threw 13 interceptions last year. I would bet most of those were thrown either in situations where the team was behind and taking risks to try to come back or else on long passes trying to make a big play. In a situation with a lead, I would bet that the interception rate is much lower.
Also, rushing is not without risks. One of the biggest is the likelihood of loss of possession via punt.
I don't know If you have a bad to mediocre QB and start throwing the ball more I am betting that you will turnover the ball more. If you look at the stats QBs with more attempts passing turn the ball over at much higher rate while the flip side rbs who have more rush attempts don't neccesarily fumble more.
The top rusher (attempts) Ezekiel Elliot only turned the ball over 5 times. The top passer (attempts) Drew Brees turned it over 20 times (ints (15) plus fumbles (5)). The Saints were 7-9 Dallas was 13-3.
You should throw the ball on every down except for obvious clock-killing situations and on either goal line. Your first possession of the game, only pass plays. Second possession the same. And so on.
You should throw the ball on every down except for obvious clock-killing situations and on either goal line. Your first possession of the game, only pass plays. Second possession the same. And so on.
Isn't that what this is saying?
No, that's not what it's saying. Did you read the article?
Read the article. It's even claiming that the stats say you should pass even late with a lead.
Essentially boils down to: yards per pass attempt > yards per rush attempt even if you have an elite, HOF level RB.
But the bigger argument is:
This is because even a great rushing attack is still worse at picking up yards than even a mediocre passing attack. The all-pro running back may gain a lot of yards as his team funnels its offense through him, but many (or even most) of those yards are picked up in spots — like when a team is slightly up or down in the third quarter — where passing would have been better
Any Falcons fans think their team ran the ball too much in the 4th quarter of that game?
- Bill Belichick, after placing tag on Blount with a deep roster at RB.
Any Falcons fans think their team ran the ball too much in the 4th quarter of that game?
Or it's a non-anecdotal analysis. What are the chances that the super bowl would play out like that again? what are the chances ATL would have blown the lead rushing the ball, or with a more balanced attack?
Any Falcons fans think their team ran the ball too much in the 4th quarter of that game?
First, it's always bad to make a judgement based on one example.
But in any case, the article is not claiming that running is a mistake with a large lead late in a game.
Giants vs Colts 2010 - ( New Window )
How would it be different?
Can you name a team where their rushing yards per attempt is higher than their passing yards per attempt over the course of 16 games?
Even the most god awful NFL passing offenses on average throw for 5 yards per pass no matter who the QB of that team is. There are only a handful of teams who can run the ball statistically over 16 games at 5 yards a pop no matter who the running back is.
Smart coaches going back a long time have understood that the short passing game is basically the same as an old-fashioned running game. Run high-percentage routes with little chance of interception, keep the QB clean for a 3-step drop and get the ball out fast, pick up a few yards, move the chains, go methodically down the field. So you have a few incompletions. That's no worse than a "no gain" run, and there's less risk of negative yardage.
But we're all used to seeing a running game or a "balanced" offense, so, we wonder what's wrong when we don't. Or we complain that it's broken and needs to be fixed. But what if it's not broken, and doesn't need fixing? What if it's better this way than the old way?
Similar: The stats that say that most of the time teams should go for it on fourth down instead of punting. If you go for it and it doesn't work, the world howls that you're an idiot. You can get fired that way. If you follow the conventional wisdom and it doesn't work, well, you went by the book.
2- goal line
otherwise you should only be running the ball as check plays that the QB decides because of the box.
2- goal line
otherwise you should only be running the ball as check plays that the QB decides because of the box.
But totally ignoring jazz, classical, R+B and so forth.
There is a whole universe of running plays that can be used to effect not only how the front 7 that's facing you has to act, but will effect their willingness and ability to do stuff against you in the pass over the course of the game, and not just relating to play action, as they respond to what your OL has been doing.
Once that is established, then you can start to have some fun.
The idea that only in actual play action plays one uses elements of run blocking to set up pass plays would be simplistic?
To the extent that you can contextualize for variances, no it's not.
But totally ignoring jazz, classical, R+B and so forth.
There is a whole universe of running plays that can be used to effect not only how the front 7 that's facing you has to act, but will effect their willingness and ability to do stuff against you in the pass over the course of the game, and not just relating to play action, as they respond to what your OL has been doing.
Maybe you can give us 5 straight posts about your brain dribble on play construction.
Huh - I thought the gist of the argument made was that win% increases more when passing than when running, which would be taking into consideration the risks of turning the ball over. On this thread people simplified that argument down to average YPC vs. average YPA, but the article itself based it on win%.
I would hazard to say that those risks are lower than most realize. The average team threw 13 interceptions last year. I would bet most of those were thrown either in situations where the team was behind and taking risks to try to come back or else on long passes trying to make a big play. In a situation with a lead, I would bet that the interception rate is much lower.
Also, rushing is not without risks. One of the biggest is the likelihood of loss of possession via punt.
Obviously with rule changes, passing is easier, and therefore, teams tend to pass more. But without the threat of the run, passing would be a lot more difficult. A good running back is still very important.
Obviously with rule changes, passing is easier, and therefore, teams tend to pass more. But without the threat of the run, passing would be a lot more difficult. A good running back is still very important.
Obviously with rule changes, passing is easier, and therefore, teams tend to pass more. But without the threat of the run, passing would be a lot more difficult. A good running back is still very important.
Not at all:
"Of course, running the football has ancillary benefits, such as burning time off the clock, avoiding turnovers, gaining positive yards more consistently, picking up shorter yardage a higher percentage of the time, keeping the defenses honest, and so on."
And
"Running backs and rushing may still be an important part of the game, so long as you aren’t trying to use it to pick up a bunch of yards on the ground. "
Does this sound rediculous? That is exactly what the Giants did to Jim Kelly and Buffalo in SuperBowl XXV. And how did that turn out?
Of course it also helped to have 4 great LBs & aren't you supposed to get your best players on the field at the same time if possible?
My point is that statistics do not tell the whole story. You have to react to game situations.
ðŸ‘
''RE: huygens and 81
Gatorade Dunk : 5/15/2017 8:02 pm : link : reply to me
''
Maybe you can give us 5 straight posts about your brain dribble on play construction..."
I do like what Natek and others said. Making more sense, the interplay between run and pass on O is the essence of offensive football. Its the 101, if you will, the freshman year stuff.
People will try to turn football into a big 'look at me' showboating game of ally oop, until they have to face a real team, with an old school coach, then the trends will reverse.
For all those namby pamby pretty boy millenials here who want to pass all day and don't value OL play, I give you exhibit 1:
The Dallas Cowboys, a real line and run team, and the NFCE East team to beat.
There's no magic wand that says Pass the ball 90% of the time and you will win. Teams adjust, the league adjusts, and then someone like the Cowboys can exploit the fact that the league has become too specialized at stopping the pass that they can no longer handle a simple run game run behind big strong people.
We saw it in the SB last year, but we've seen it several other times in recent years where a team leading leaves too much time on the clock for a game-losing drive, and it is often because they've tried an ill-advised pass that saves the opposition 35 seconds. This was Giants fans main complaints against TC in losses to Dallas and Atlanta in 2015. It has been a basis for complaints for Packers fans where for every game clinching throw rodgers has, an incompletion stops the clock - it led directly to two of their losses last year.
The odds are that any given pass play is going to lead to more yards than any given running play - but that's basic thinking. It doesn't factor things in like the importance of 20-45 seconds in the latter stages of the game for the positives a pass provides.
'it hurts our bwains!'
(hehehe, good post fatty)
Last season, ours was great, but we saw that at the end, not as much juice.
Since 2008, the Cowboys have finished 3rd or 4th in the division more times than they've finished 1st or 2nd, yet they are consistently called the team to beat. I really don't get it.
The RB who can both pass-block and catch the ball downfield isn't just necessary for 3rd downs, he is necessary on 1st and 2nd down as well.
With few exceptions.
There's no magic wand that says Pass the ball 90% of the time and you will win. Teams adjust, the league adjusts, and then someone like the Cowboys can exploit the fact that the league has become too specialized at stopping the pass that they can no longer handle a simple run game run behind big strong people.
This is kind of what I meant with my 3:16 post. Belichick recognizes tendencies and overvaluation/undervaluations and stays ahead of trends developing. There is a reason he was loading up on TE a few years back and there might just be a reason that he's got so many legit running backs on his roster now.
Mostly - when teams load up to take one thing away from him he's preparing to beat you another way.
And no one doubts that little Bill is the league's most successful trendsetter.
Obviously with rule changes, passing is easier, and therefore, teams tend to pass more. But without the threat of the run, passing would be a lot more difficult. A good running back is still very important.
The article doesn't disregard that. In fact it states that the primary, if not only, reason to run the ball is to force the defense to respect the run.
I would hazard to say that those risks are lower than most realize. The average team threw 13 interceptions last year. I would bet most of those were thrown either in situations where the team was behind and taking risks to try to come back or else on long passes trying to make a big play. In a situation with a lead, I would bet that the interception rate is much lower.
Also, rushing is not without risks. One of the biggest is the likelihood of loss of possession via punt.
I don't know If you have a bad to mediocre QB and start throwing the ball more I am betting that you will turnover the ball more. If you look at the stats QBs with more attempts passing turn the ball over at much higher rate while the flip side rbs who have more rush attempts don't neccesarily fumble more.
The top rusher (attempts) Ezekiel Elliot only turned the ball over 5 times. The top passer (attempts) Drew Brees turned it over 20 times (ints (15) plus fumbles (5)). The Saints were 7-9 Dallas was 13-3.
This. People get caught up on stats in a sport where stats tell you very little. It isn't baseball where a box score tells you the tape
Isn't that what this is saying?
Isn't that what this is saying?