PDA

View Full Version : Being Counterintuitive Regarding Running the Ball



Dreadnought
10-29-2011, 11:25 AM
OK, I've accepted as gospel truth the conventional wisdom that running the ball is being supplanted in this passing league, but it occurred to me to check some actual stats on this. I was surprised to see average carries up to 4.3 YPC league wide (highest I can recall) and Yards per game about steady at 114 per game or thereabouts. I went and looked back at 97/98. and found YPA at 4.0 and YPG about 5 yards lower than now. Back to 1986 and its 3.9 YPC and 118 per game. 1977 is very different, at 143 per game and an anemic 3.8 YPA. This was of course right before the League opened up the pass game, so not surprising.

My point is that I am always suspicious of conventional wisdom in everything. I never bought into the "featured back" fetish of a few years back, for instance, and that time at least I was proved right as the league adopts a RBBC approach. In any event, I have a suspicion that an offensive approach geared more towards a 50/50 run-pass mix will be the next dominant offense. Running clearly still works, and may become more effective as defenses gear their personnel more towards a pass rush. The 70/30 Eagles and Colts approach will become dated and increasingly ineffective once it becomes conventional wisdom, which may be approaching. There are also a limited supply of truly elite QB's at any time, and attempting to ape the Tom Brady Patriots with the Kyle Ortons of the League is not a recipe for wins. If you don't have Tom Brady don't call plays as if you do.

Thoughts?

chazoe60
10-29-2011, 11:47 AM
What about attempts per game Dread? BTW, nice research thanks.

Dreadnought
10-29-2011, 04:57 PM
What about attempts per game Dread? BTW, nice research thanks.

Its about 27 attempts per team. In '98 it was 28; 1986 was 30; 1977 was 37. Clearly there was a big shift about 30 years ago, coinciding with the rules changes.

Also of note - there are some freaking rancid run defenses in 2011. Five teams are giving up 5 yards per carry or more (Bills, Lions*, Saints, Bears, Rams). Some of that can be explained by teams with big leads being willing to surrender easy rushing yardage, but its pretty bad. By comparison, the 2010 Broncos gave up a feeble 4.7, and we know what that meant. The worst team in the league last Season, the Bills, surrendered 4.8. Teams giving up 5 YPC or more is very rare, even among some legendarily bad defenses.

The Rams are in a class of their own, giving up an astonishing 5.5 Yards per carry. I had to go back to 1959 and the awful 3-9 Redskins to find even an equal to this for total wretchedness, and I found nobody worse going back 60 years. This, by the by, tells me that Josh McDaniels is far from the only problem the Rams labor under. That team is a dumpster fire.


* If we run a lot versus the Lions I won't be blaming McCoy. This is one case where we ought to be running a lot if the staff is doing its homework.

Nomad
10-29-2011, 05:18 PM
What about attempts per game Dread? BTW, nice research thanks.

Good stuff Dread......no matter what you always need a good run game! How's that nor'easter treatin you?

NameUsedBefore
10-29-2011, 06:17 PM
One doesn't have to be exclusive from the other. I don't think it is a zero-sum game.

BroncoTech
10-29-2011, 06:20 PM
There a lot of cliches in regards to running the ball and winning. Like the running game opens the passing game up, or the passing game opening the running game up. Some teams win 7 out of 8 games when their running back goes over 100 yards. Then the old coaching adage 'we have to run the ball and stop their run'.

Teams that run the ball rest their defensive line while giving a beating to the opposing defensive line. Also run blocking is easier on an offensive line than pass blocking so you are doing the above while resting your offensive line.

Also I think a good running game adds to team strength late in games and late in the season.

underrated29
10-29-2011, 08:11 PM
See I think the lions run d is like the raiders run d....its actually pretty good but will break open the big play

Dreadnought
10-29-2011, 08:16 PM
See I think the lions run d is like the raiders run d....its actually pretty good but will break open the big play

That might well be. Their LBers are crappy and DB's are nothing special, so if you can pop it to the second level there is yardage to be had. Giving up big runs will screw up your YPC something fierce. The 2000 Broncos suffered from that in Greg Robinsons all or nuthin approach to playing D. Still, it means we ought to be running a good bit on them, and for a lot of sound reasons. I wish I had more faith in Knowshon.

Agent of Orange
10-29-2011, 11:19 PM
OK, I've accepted as gospel truth the conventional wisdom that running the ball is being supplanted in this passing league, but it occurred to me to check some actual stats on this. I was surprised to see average carries up to 4.3 YPC league wide (highest I can recall) and Yards per game about steady at 114 per game or thereabouts. I went and looked back at 97/98. and found YPA at 4.0 and YPG about 5 yards lower than now. Back to 1986 and its 3.9 YPC and 118 per game. 1977 is very different, at 143 per game and an anemic 3.8 YPA. This was of course right before the League opened up the pass game, so not surprising.

My point is that I am always suspicious of conventional wisdom in everything. I never bought into the "featured back" fetish of a few years back, for instance, and that time at least I was proved right as the league adopts a RBBC approach. In any event, I have a suspicion that an offensive approach geared more towards a 50/50 run-pass mix will be the next dominant offense. Running clearly still works, and may become more effective as defenses gear their personnel more towards a pass rush. The 70/30 Eagles and Colts approach will become dated and increasingly ineffective once it becomes conventional wisdom, which may be approaching. There are also a limited supply of truly elite QB's at any time, and attempting to ape the Tom Brady Patriots with the Kyle Ortons of the League is not a recipe for wins. If you don't have Tom Brady don't call plays as if you do.

Thoughts?

I like how you're actually scrutinous and not just accepting some often repeated truism.

But, relative to what people are saying about it being a passing league, you also have to look at the changes in passing yards over the same time span that you looked at the change in rushing yards. If it's easier to pass now, that could also lead to easier yardage in the running game (ie the higher average per carry).

Another thing that you have to consider is tackling. The tackles are brutal now because guys make themselves missiles. This leads to more wear and tear and it also leads to a lot of missed tackles. The art of tackling is fading. Part of it is that defenses are more focused on stopping the pass. A lot of safeties in todays game are converted CBs. And it's also partly money. Teams don't want players to get injured in practice, which is where tackling needs needs to be refined.

Regarding your comments about RBBC. This has always existed in some form. Instead though, the FB used to actually carry the ball back in the day. Now, instead, it's a 2nd running back.

By the way, I agree with you about balance. When you play strong defenses in the post seasons, the more one dimensional you are, there's a better chance of you losing.

Too many look at points and yards when assessing the quality of an offense. These are biased towards passing. A better offense will often have fewer yards and score a little less points if it's because they're more balanced. When you run the ball, you shrink the clock.

Dreadnought
10-29-2011, 11:50 PM
I like how you're actually scrutinous and not just accepting some often repeated truism.

But, relative to what people are saying about it being a passing league, you also have to look at the changes in passing yards over the same time span that you looked at the change in rushing yards. If it's easier to pass now, that could also lead to easier yardage in the running game (ie the higher average per carry).

Another thing that you have to consider is tackling. The tackles are brutal now because guys make themselves missiles. This leads to more wear and tear and it also leads to a lot of missed tackles. The art of tackling is fading. Part of it is that defenses are more focused on stopping the pass. A lot of safeties in todays game are converted CBs. And it's also partly money. Teams don't want players to get injured in practice, which is where tackling needs needs to be refined.

Regarding your comments about RBBC. This has always existed in some form. Instead though, the FB used to actually carry the ball back in the day. Now, instead, it's a 2nd running back.

By the way, I agree with you about balance. When you play strong defenses in the post seasons, the more one dimensional you are, there's a better chance of you losing.

Too many look at points and yards when assessing the quality of an offense. These are biased towards passing. A better offense will often have fewer yards and score a little less points if it's because they're more balanced. When you run the ball, you shrink the clock.

Good stuff and I agree with almost everything you said. A couple of additional points

1) I took some more time going thrugh old stats (yes, I'm weird like that). They don't make terrible QB's like they used to, thats for sure! Go into any set of 80's and especially 70's stats and look at the lower tier of QB ratings. There were some brutal stiffs playing in those days, and chumps that bad are simply not seen anymore. Even the worst NFL QB's playing now would seem perfectly OK as mid range journeymen in 1983. QB ratings as a whole are far higher than they once were, ditto total yardage. The one area that has seen a big decline is yards per completion, and I think thats a function of dink n' dunk style passing substituting for a running game by some teams. I know that can work in theory, but I'm not convinced that style scores enough points. For that you need a real actual running threat, if only to make play action work.

2) The point on safeties is spot on. Teams also go more 5 or 6 DB's than they once did. Also, Defensive ends are more often pass rush specialists than general purpose D linemen now. I think both those argue that a sound running game can be used to attack such a defense. The whole idea is to come up with an offense that the rest of the league has to adjust to...and no, that does not mean some crappy NCAA Spread!

3) I am a throwback, and am stodgy enough that to this day I still can't wrap my head around the idea of a FB as primarily a blocker. It sure worked with TD and Howard Griffith, but even just before Griffith arrived Aaron Craver got a good number of carries out of the FB spot in '96. I wonder if Shanny had a role like that envisioned for Hillis when he drafted him?

AlWilsonizKING
10-30-2011, 12:03 AM
i think a good running game adds to team strength late in games and late in the season.

(stupid caps limit)

PEACE!!!

Agent of Orange
10-30-2011, 12:03 AM
Good stuff and I agree with almost everything you said. A couple of additional points

1) I took some more time going thrugh old stats (yes, I'm weird like that). They don't make terrible QB's like they used to, thats for sure! Go into any set of 80's and especially 70's stats and look at the lower tier of QB ratings. There were some brutal stiffs playing in those days, and chumps that bad are simply not seen anymore. Even the worst NFL QB's playing now would seem perfectly OK as mid range journeymen in 1983. QB ratings as a whole are far higher than they once were, ditto total yardage. The one area that has seen a big decline is yards per completion, and I think thats a function of dink n' dunk style passing substituting for a running game by some teams. I know that can work in theory, but I'm not convinced that style scores enough points. For that you need a real actual running threat, if only to make play action work.

2) The point on safeties is spot on. Teams also go more 5 or 6 DB's than they once did. Also, Defensive ends are more often pass rush specialists than general purpose D linemen now. I think both those argue that a sound running game can be used to attack such a defense. The whole idea is to come up with an offense that the rest of the league has to adjust to...and no, that does not mean some crappy NCAA Spread!

3) I am a throwback, and am stodgy enough that to this day I still can't wrap my head around the idea of a FB as primarily a blocker. It sure worked with TD and Howard Griffith, but even just before Griffith arrived Aaron Craver got a good number of carries out of the FB spot in '96. I wonder if Shanny had a role like that envisioned for Hillis when he drafted him?

One of the reasons I like a running fullback is because, around the goal line, it's a change of pace for the the defense. I think the FB is at the hole so fast that it changes the way the defense must think in terms of how they defend the run.

Dreadnought
11-13-2011, 09:59 PM
Hey, I'm feeling prophetic today, after the Raiders and Chiefs games. How about that whole running the ball thing, eh? :D

sneakers
11-13-2011, 10:02 PM
I like run ball

wayninja
11-13-2011, 10:08 PM
Denver run ball good. Smash.

The Glue Factory
11-14-2011, 11:59 AM
Hey, I'm feeling prophetic today, after the Raiders and Chiefs games. How about that whole running the ball thing, eh? :D

As we proved yesterday, do it until they force you to stop. Unfortunately, it looked like KC managed that late in the 2nd and throughout the 3rd. If you can run all the way to a TD, why not?

If they can't stop your run why take the chance of an incomplete, interception, sack or fumble with passing? As we saw against Oakland, their line was gassed at the end of the game.

I think the loosening of rules regarding passing has given HCs a shiny toy to play with. Shanny showed that the game hasn't changed that much and we played the Packers about 20 yrs after the passing game opened up more.

LTC Pain
11-14-2011, 12:03 PM
Good stuff Dread, thanks. Short and sweet, me like :)

TXBRONC
11-14-2011, 12:06 PM
OK, I've accepted as gospel truth the conventional wisdom that running the ball is being supplanted in this passing league, but it occurred to me to check some actual stats on this. I was surprised to see average carries up to 4.3 YPC league wide (highest I can recall) and Yards per game about steady at 114 per game or thereabouts. I went and looked back at 97/98. and found YPA at 4.0 and YPG about 5 yards lower than now. Back to 1986 and its 3.9 YPC and 118 per game. 1977 is very different, at 143 per game and an anemic 3.8 YPA. This was of course right before the League opened up the pass game, so not surprising.

My point is that I am always suspicious of conventional wisdom in everything. I never bought into the "featured back" fetish of a few years back, for instance, and that time at least I was proved right as the league adopts a RBBC approach. In any event, I have a suspicion that an offensive approach geared more towards a 50/50 run-pass mix will be the next dominant offense. Running clearly still works, and may become more effective as defenses gear their personnel more towards a pass rush. The 70/30 Eagles and Colts approach will become dated and increasingly ineffective once it becomes conventional wisdom, which may be approaching. There are also a limited supply of truly elite QB's at any time, and attempting to ape the Tom Brady Patriots with the Kyle Ortons of the League is not a recipe for wins. If you don't have Tom Brady don't call plays as if you do.

Thoughts?

It's my preference. I think if you can have run to pass ratio that is close to 50/50 you're much more difficult team to defend.

The Glue Factory
11-14-2011, 01:20 PM
It's my preference. I think if you can have run to pass ratio that is close to 50/50 you're much more difficult team to defend.

I have no problem with pounding the ball 80% or more as long as we are sustaining drives and scoring points (primarily TDs.) Nothing like eating up the clock in big chunks when you're winning.