

Off-Season Priority #1: Find A Running Game


  1. Alexander

    Alexander What's it going to be then, eh?

    23,296 Messages
    3,534 Likes Received
    Play action also works better when you do not fake the ball to open air, which Romo actually did on one of his interceptions against Washington.
  2. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    27,757 Messages
    3,742 Likes Received
    He's saying *being effective* in the running game doesn't have much correlation to winning or losing. That's not the same thing as saying the running game doesn't have an impact on winning and losing.

    Even the most effective passing teams still run the balls a significant percentage of their offensive snaps. There's a reason for that. There are downs and distances where the smart move is to run the ball. You do that to get into better position to pass effectively, since passing more effectively than the other guy is what typically wins you the game.
  3. xwalker

    xwalker Well-Known Member

    9,892 Messages
    2,798 Likes Received
  4. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    27,757 Messages
    3,742 Likes Received
    I think you guys have to realize he's also won this debate before you're going to get to move on to the next topic. I don't think just giving up is going to be sufficient here. The goal is to achieve understanding.

    Also, I don't think he's online.
  5. percyhoward

    percyhoward Research Tool

    7,885 Messages
    1,436 Likes Received
    He's saying that a team's running game shouldn't even be among its top 10 priorities.
  6. Zman5

    Zman5 Well-Known Member

    4,794 Messages
    580 Likes Received

    "A running game doesn't really help you win games. Its impact is almost negligible."

    ^^^ That was what he posted few pages back. He is saying running game has almost no impact on winning games. Nothing about *being effective* in the running game.
  7. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    27,757 Messages
    3,742 Likes Received
    Well, I can't speak for him in that regard. I think he means a team being incrementally more effective in running the ball than it's opponent doesn't make it more likely to win, but I'm sure he'll clarify.
  8. percyhoward

    percyhoward Research Tool

    7,885 Messages
    1,436 Likes Received
    These are both still out there. Anybody who can explain how running doesn't help you win games should have no problem responding to both of them.

    • How were the Skins able to parlay a 66.9 rating by their QB into 361 yards of offense with no interceptions and no help from the running game?

    • How did the Giants' 17-4 edge in red zone rushing TD in 2011 not contribute to their having more total TD per possession?
  9. cowboysooner

    cowboysooner Well-Known Member

    1,381 Messages
    30 Likes Received
    The most important factors in the top running teams are how much time they play with a lead (Houston, New England, San Francisco) and do they have a schematic running advantage from either a running qb (Washington, Seattle, recently SF), or a Shannahan stretch system (Houston, Washington, some Seattle). The 49ers and Vikings are really the only 2 teams that are great running teams almost purely from great players.
  10. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    74,832 Messages
    1,479 Likes Received
    I see it as a pretty simple thing, the more you can do on offense the harder it is to defend. If you can only do one thing very well it does not take much to stop that offense. Passing is very important but teams who can run the ball and pass the ball are damn hard to beat.

    Defense can't just go after the QB they must respect the run.

    Does the run help in winning ball games? Sure it does anything that helps an offense run efficiently and can contribute to putting points on the board helps you win.
  11. Stryker44

    Stryker44 Active Member

    805 Messages
    29 Likes Received
    Didn't Murray have 17 carries for 79ish yards last Sunday? That's not bad...I think you guys just don't stick with the run enough and that's one thing that has always baffled me about Garrett's playcalling.

    I think the biggest advantage of the run game is that it wears defenses down and helps keep YOUR defense fresh for when it needs to be later in the game.
  12. Preventdefense

    Preventdefense New Member

    1 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Brand new poster here. This is a great thread. I read it from the beginning yesterday. I wish the two sides would try harder to understand each other because I think they both make valid points.

    The Traditional Guys argue that a good running game is important. However in general they fail to accurately define what makes a running game "good" or "bad". They fail to identify useful metrics with which to differentiate an acceptable running game from an unacceptable running game. For instance simply having a 1000 yard back is not proof that a team's running game helps them win.

    On the other side the Stats Guys try to have it both ways in my opinion. Oddly enough they make an argument that anti-stat guys make in baseball, that one part of the game (pitching) is vastly more important than the other (hitting).

    When discussing the passing game, the Stats Guys look (quite properly) at the whole picture of yards gained, turnovers and sacks. Yet when they dismiss the running game they mainly just address yardage, with no mention of turnovers. Furthermore while they acknowledge that a team does indeed need a running game for certain specific instances and also because it would not work to literally throw on every down, they are adamant that the running game is essentially irrelevant to whether a team wins or loses. An entity can't be both a necessity and irrelevant.

    In the quote above Wick (whose posts are intelligent and enjoyable to read) says "Dallas wins that game if you change nothing else except the turnovers". What if instead of interceptions those three turnovers had been fumbles by running backs? Would that change the equation? I don't see how. A turnover is a turnover.

    Given that passing turnovers are vitally important, are not then rushing turnovers just as vital (potentially even more damaging in terms of field position) ? And if so wouldn't that in turn mean that the running game in totality does exert an influence on the outcome of games?

    My gut tells me that given the 80% win ratio of the team that is more successful passing that has been cited by Adam, the passing game must exert a greater influence on the ultimate result via the differential of yards gained on a per yard basis than does the running game. Put another way the outcome is more sensitive to passing yardage than rushing yardage. What my gut doesn't tell me is why.

    Consider: Suppose a running back was so good, so fast, so elusive, that he averaged 50 yards per carry. Would not he influence the outcome of games differently relative to a back who averaged 1 yard per carry? Obviously that is an absurd example given to make this point: At some level the running game matters and does effect who wins and who loses but its far more complex than just seeing who can rack up the most rushing yardage.
  13. percyhoward

    percyhoward Research Tool

    7,885 Messages
    1,436 Likes Received
    I agree that there is a problem comparing ANYPA with YPR. But I'd also include TD (as well as fumbles) to measure rush rating if it is to be anything like pass rating. The Skins would have had a hard time getting 4 TD if they hadn't run as well as they did, for example, and YPR doesn't show that at all.
  14. TheSport78

    TheSport78 The Excellence of Execution

    8,432 Messages
    408 Likes Received
    If you take out Julius Jones' mediocre 1,084 rushing performance in 2006, the Cowboys haven't had a 1,000 yard rusher since....

    EMMITT SMITH in 2001

    ONE 1,000 rusher in past eleven years, and ONE playoff win....maybe a correlation?

    Until Dallas dedicates itself to the running game, seriously upgrading the OL and becoming a balanced football team, this team is going nowhere.

    Emmitt friggin' Smith

    DOUBLE WING Well-Known Member

    2,971 Messages
    514 Likes Received
    Pathetic considering how easy it is to get 1,000 yards nowadays.
  16. intelmax

    intelmax New Member

    89 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Holy cow barber never ran for a 1000? man this is bad..
  17. Eddie

    Eddie Well-Known Member

    8,602 Messages
    296 Likes Received
    Yeah, when we draft "complementary" RB's in the first round, this is what we should expect.
  18. Future

    Future Intramural Legend

    15,637 Messages
    1,104 Likes Received
    We've decided to go running back by committee on a pass first offense, this shouldn't really be a surprise.

    Julius Jones, MBIII, DeMarco, and I think even Felix, have all been capable of it.
  19. Smashin222

    Smashin222 Member

    553 Messages
    2 Likes Received

    So if we ignore a season? Cool stat bro.

    Why not just say 1 in the past 7 years?
  20. vlad

    vlad Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    1,037 Messages
    58 Likes Received
    If it makes you feel any better I am sure Julius Jones had over a 1000 one year...I think his 3rd year. barely over a 1000.

    But this leads to what I personally (not claiming any guru skills here) have been upset about going back to Bledsoe - we've barely had passable lines if at all during those periods. I remember complaining about Julius being hit or having to make moves in the backfield.

    That one year we had a great team running game (I think the 13-3 year) to me was more about the fact people were worried about Romo/TO/Glenn/Crayton/Witten than a good line.

    The easiest evidence I can think of think of how many years now we've sucked at short yardage.

Share This Page