Rick Gosselin: the 300 yd passer vs the 100 yard rusher

that the team isnt winning because of the 100 yard rusher, but the rusher is getting 100 yards because the team is winning

Run; Stop the run; Harass the QB.

now than it was 5 years ago, I don’t think it’s even debatable. I don’t think it’s will stop being a passing league but teams with good running games have a massive advantage.

(Then)

Run to win.

in that if a team is leading they might be more likely to pound the ball more and kill the clock

in a game. And the three wins were when we were playing against a backup QB (Bucs, Bears and Redskins).
How does that fit in to the stats?

Analytics !

you can control the game. Then you throw when you want to instead of because you have to.

In comment 14246483 MOOPS said:

Quote:

in a game. And the three wins were when we were playing against a backup QB (Bucs, Bears and Redskins). How does that fit in to the stats?

Like I said in the OP, I was not claiming the stat was correlative of anything, just interesting.

to your point though, the Giants were 0 - 5 when Eli threw for 300+ yards this year.

and historically playing against a backup QB hasn't meant much for the Giants. not sure I'd lean on that right now as a crutch to explain those wins.

That shows both teams tend pass more than run in the early stages of games, or when the game is still close.

As the game goes on and one team builds a 2+ score lead, the leading team will run more to run out the clock, and the losing team will pass more to try and score quickly.

These are indisputable facts, fact that have not changed for over 25 years. Facts that remain constant now as they have in any earlier period, and if anything leans more towards the pass even in 2018.

without Zeke Elliott.

Stopping the run was meaningless in that game which should provide a template to Giant brass as to what the team needs on the Defense.

Someone to defend against TEs running down the middle of the field to start with; an effective Edge Rusher to pressure qb's who have all day to find their second, third and/or fourth reads which are usually running through the middle zones of our D; LBs who can run sideline to sideline and cover e.g. the Cowboy lbs; Safeties who can pass cover particularly in the middle of the field.

If you run well, you keep the opposition's offense sitting on the bench, (where they can't hurt you) while you punish their defense into submission.

This is where Gettleman's 3rd factor comes into play. Their offense becomes desperate because they can't run on 1st and 2nd downs. (They're in 3rd and long all day) .

Now you "sic the dogs"on the QB (especially in the 4th quarter); GAME OVER !

is a lot better than 2-7 when he didn't.

IF you have a defensive line sacking the QB, 50 to 60 times a year, you can hide a heck of a lot of deficiencies in your "back seven" because that QB is running for his life all day, never mind trying to complete a pass !

In comment 14246546 CT Charlie said:

Quote:

is a lot better than 2-7 when he didn't.

Was just going to say the same thing, .428 win percentage when he ran for 100+ is a heck of a lot better than the .222 when he didn’t.

In comment 14246461 The Dude said:

Quote:

that the team isnt winning because of the 100 yard rusher, but the rusher is getting 100 yards because the team is winning

Bingo

from another thread with some extra ones as they fit here too.

These are from before and after the bye because I don't think anyone can dispute the offense got much better after the bye and it was mostly about the run game. They started a better overall OL after the bye. Shurmer convinced Barkley to slightly alter his running style after the bye. They ran the ball a lot more after the bye.

As others have said, a solid run game helps the team more than a solid passing game even if it is a passing league. It helps keep the opposing team's offense off of the field longer while tiring their defense. It gives our defense more time to rest. As Barkley doesn't fumble the ball, it reduces the chances of turning the ball over. It allows you to pass because you want to and not because you have to. It forces the opposing team's defense to respect your options meaning they can't just pin their ears back and rush the passer. Nearly all QBs in the league are better in play-action, especially Eli.

18.8 point average before bye
27.4 point average after the bye

1-7 before the bye
4-4 after the bye

Lost games by an average of 8.57 points before the bye
Lost games by an average of 5.55 points after the bye

77.9 average rushing yards before the bye
128.4 average rushing yards after the bye

623 total rushing yards before the bye
1027 total rushing yards after the bye

32% of the plays were rushes before the bye
43% of the plays were rushes after the bye
41.18% is the NFL average for the year
43.96% is the NFL average of playoff teams for the year

5 rushing TDs before the bye
8 rushing TDs after they bye

275.4 average passing yards before the bye
230.5 average passing yards after the bye

9 passing TDs before the bye
14 passing TDs after the bye

Extra added stats below ----

31 sacks before the bye
16 sacks after the bye

6 interceptions before the bye
5 interceptions after the bye

I hate this stat but I know a lot of you all like it so I will do the right thing and post it all.
90.9 QBR before the bye
94.1 QBR after the bye

68.3% Completion percentage before the bye
63.2% Completion percentage after the bye

7.55 Throwing average before the bye
7.36 Throwing average after the bye

315 Passing attempts before the bye
261 Passing attempts after the bye

Alright, that's enough. I'm trying very hard to avoid the cherry-picking claims because I don't do that. Did I leave a stat out? This should show just how great a better run game is for a team even in a passing league.

that the Giants were missing their #1 WR (one of the league's best) for half of their games after the bye (4 games). I feel that's very relevant.

Again, 8 games before the bye and 8 games after the bye. An even split. A fair look at each half of the season.

That the 100 rushing yards caused the winning, rather then the teams were winning so they ran the ball to slow down the game. Alternatively, teams who are losing will throw in effort to catch up. It’s an inappropriate use of statistics.

Without causality.

I'm more surprised by the 'only' 132 big passing games this year than the 108 rushing games.

1-2 years ago I felt like the trend was much more disparate in terms of passing offense so as commissioner of my fantasy league, I changed bonus rushing to post 80 yards and kept passing bonuses at 300+. I'm guessing 80+ rushing is roughly in that 130-140 range, similar to QBs, so I'm on the right track (and there is still MUCH higher injury risk to RB than QB so i want RBs scoring more...).. but thanks for this statistic, we always adjust our scoring based on where the league is going.

In comment 14246574 UberAlias said:

Quote:

That the 100 rushing yards caused the winning, rather then the teams were winning so they ran the ball to slow down the game. Alternatively, teams who are losing will throw in effort to catch up. It’s an inappropriate use of statistics.

Well, there's obviously a causality between running the ball well... and controlling clock, limiting opponent TOP, wearing out a defense... and winning. Its not ground-breaking. He did say individual 100+ yard games.. in blowouts, the starter is usually not getting 4Q carries...

But yeah, its also common sense that a lot of 300+ yard games are due to 4Q chucking in a lop sided game too.

I wish more of the talking heads would look at efficiency statistics, not yards and total output. Brady showed his age this year, so not really talking 2018 -- but one of the things that always impressed me in prior years about Brady was he'd throw for 250-280 yards on like 25 attempts so often...

So often many of the 300 yards come in garbage time or against a prevent D.

Nothing new in this stat - it shows correlation not causation.

You run more when you’re ahead. Pass more when you’re behind. You’re also more likely to face prevent or deeper zone coverage when you’re behind, which allows you to rack up the yards in the short (dumpoff) and short-intermediate game.

In comment 14246607 TD said:

Quote:

So often many of the 300 yards come in garbage time or against a prevent D. Nothing new in this stat - it shows correlation not causation. You run more when you’re ahead. Pass more when you’re behind. You’re also more likely to face prevent or deeper zone coverage when you’re behind, which allows you to rack up the yards in the short (dumpoff) and short-intermediate game.

The QB 300+ yards game does for sure. Not so sure about 100 yard individual rushing yard games. In blowouts, those guys are sitting on the bench in the 4Q.

The four teams with byes -- those with the best shot of getting to are No. 1, 3, 4, and 5 in passing DVOA.

Wade Phillips spoke at a clinic about making getting to QB the first priority of his dline and coaching them to “stop the run on the way to the passer”

Running the ball is obviously still important but passing the football and stopping the pass are becoming the two likeliest ways to win games.

In comment 14246461 The Dude said:

Quote:

that the team isnt winning because of the 100 yard rusher, but the rusher is getting 100 yards because the team is winning

This 1000x over. It’s much easier to run the ball when you’re winning a game. If you’re down by two scores and playing catch up you’re not going to be forcing the run. Many fans (and even some football people) simply don’t get it.

If you're winning the game and trying to stall, you run. What do you think the opponent is going to ? Just let it happen - No. He will do everything he can to STOP the run.

He WANTS for you to put the ball in the air, so he has a chance to tip it, do something to get the ball back.

31 teams in the NFL were a combined 79-21-1 when they had a 100 yard rusher.
The Giants, the other team, was 3-4 when they had a 100 yard rusher.
The Giants, one team, accounted for 20% of the total losses in the league when they had a 100 yard rusher.

In comment 14246538 ChicagoMarty said:

Quote:

without Zeke Elliott. Stopping the run was meaningless in that game which should provide a template to Giant brass as to what the team needs on the Defense. Someone to defend against TEs running down the middle of the field to start with; an effective Edge Rusher to pressure qb's who have all day to find their second, third and/or fourth reads which are usually running through the middle zones of our D; LBs who can run sideline to sideline and cover e.g. the Cowboy lbs; Safeties who can pass cover particularly in the middle of the field.

Disagree. It all comes down to the pass rush. It’s no coincidence that every team in the playoffs can rush the passer. Only a few can cover.

In comment 14246613 ajr2456 said:

Quote:

The four teams with byes -- those with the best shot of getting to are No. 1, 3, 4, and 5 in passing DVOA. Wade Phillips spoke at a clinic about making getting to QB the first priority of his dline and coaching them to “stop the run on the way to the passer” Running the ball is obviously still important but passing the football and stopping the pass are becoming the two likeliest ways to win games.

On this we certainly agree.

just one more tidbit about run/pas ratio league wide.
here is a graph of R/P ratio through 2016.
in 2016 R/P ratio hi an all time high of 59.1% Pass to 40.9% run, in 2008 it dipped a bit to 56% pass to 44% run, but this year it went back p to 58.8 pass to 41.2 run... The trend towards passing shows no sign of abating despite what some would have you believe.

it dipped in 2017!!!
Went back up in 2018

That looks like an asymptotic line that is close to approaching its upper limit of say 60% passing to 40% rushing, or thereabout.

It's not even remotely a linear function with a positive slope, which the term "non-abating" would imply.

.

good RB then in Rd 1...

last draft.

My guess is it hasn't by much, and that this is just one of those obvious aggregate stats that don't tell much of a story (winning teams tend to run the ball more when they're ahead to milk a lead, etc.).

What I'd like to see is more situational, not so much to validate that a team with a good rushing attack can win, but to see how that rushing attack is architected and whether it drives the passing attack or vice versa (it seems the old adage that the run opens up the pass has flipped around a bit, with quick slants taking some snaps from runs). It's still just data, but I think it'd be more useful than just 'run a hundred yards and you'll win'.

I’m curious about that sharp dip from 98 to 2000. Wonder what led to that.

In comment 14246839 jcn56 said:

Quote:

My guess is it hasn't by much, and that this is just one of those obvious aggregate stats that don't tell much of a story (winning teams tend to run the ball more when they're ahead to milk a lead, etc.). What I'd like to see is more situational, not so much to validate that a team with a good rushing attack can win, but to see how that rushing attack is architected and whether it drives the passing attack or vice versa (it seems the old adage that the run opens up the pass has flipped around a bit, with quick slants taking some snaps from runs). It's still just data, but I think it'd be more useful than just 'run a hundred yards and you'll win'.

You’d need to adjust this stat for game flow and DVOA to really get any insight imo. There’s too many variables in each of those 100 yard games to use it as a measuring stick.

you need a good defense. That is the reason why the Giants lost to the Cowboys. They lost, because the defense stunk.

pass attempts in which teams that had about 35 + attempts were usually the losing team.
I think attempts is more an indicator and yardage is a result of attempts.

In comment 14246839 jcn56 said:

Quote:

My guess is it hasn't by much, and that this is just one of those obvious aggregate stats that don't tell much of a story (winning teams tend to run the ball more when they're ahead to milk a lead, etc.). What I'd like to see is more situational, not so much to validate that a team with a good rushing attack can win, but to see how that rushing attack is architected and whether it drives the passing attack or vice versa (it seems the old adage that the run opens up the pass has flipped around a bit, with quick slants taking some snaps from runs). It's still just data, but I think it'd be more useful than just 'run a hundred yards and you'll win'.

And that's a major skill/tool to have in your arsenal. Being able to do that is a major, major asset.

In comment 14246824 Britt in VA said:

Quote:

last draft.

No it definitely improved. Lets go with another...

in passing plays id due to dink/checkoff passes that many coaches just think of as an extension of the run game? How many 5 yard passes did Namath or Marino throw?

In comment 14246799 BlueLou'sBack said:

Quote:

That looks like an asymptotic line that is close to approaching its upper limit of say 60% passing to 40% rushing, or thereabout. It's not even remotely a linear function with a positive slope, which the term "non-abating" would imply.

Gee, starting from 1980, it looks pretty darn linear to me...
Sure there are some ups and downs, but the overall rate of throwing seems to be on a steady upward trend, that shows NO SIGN OF ABATING!!!