The importance of a running game

[rodell330]

Anyone else watch the Niners game last night? anybody see Alex smith out there looking like joe Montana? You know why he was able to complete 98% of his passes? because he has a RELIABLE run game to lean on. The Cardinals(a pretty good defense) did not have the luxury of dropping linebackers into coverage because they had to respect the threat of a running game.

All these folks on here that keep arguing we don't need a running game because we are a passing team clearly doesn't really understand football. Any defensive coordinator in the history of football will tell you that it's a win if they can drop lb's into coverage and just use their front four or three to stop the run. Those are extra defenders agsinst the pass which is a huge benefit when it comes to stopping a team based on...being a "passing team". We had a chnace to grab Lynch last year and blew it....go figure. TT needs to not be so passive.

 

[SpartaChris]

Right, then you have games like when the Niners played the Giants and got blown out at home because they can't pass the ball. You're kidding yourself if you think the Niners aren't just as one dimensional as we are. For them it's running the ball. For us it's passing.

Also, we went over this in the great Marshawn Lynch thread. The fact is you really only need the illusion of being able to run the ball. You need to run it well enough to sell it. We don't run well enough to sell the idea of running the ball, which is our issue.

 

[ivo610]

From the 2011 season... of the top 5 rushing teams, 2 went to the playoffs. Of the bottom 5 rushing teams, 2 went to the playoffs.

 

[rodell330]

From the 2011 season... of the top 5 rushing teams, 2 went to the playoffs. Of the bottom 5 rushing teams, 2 went to the playoffs.

So what is your argument? A solid running game makes a passing offense that rellies so much on throwing the ball and playaction better. That is a FACT. A running game is important...period.

 

[ivo610]

So what is your argument? A solid running game makes a passing offense that rellies so much on throwing the ball and playaction better. That is a FACT. A running game is important...period.

No it's a myth. It's been proven its a myth.
You have teams with terrible running games winning the SB, if you don't like numbers and would rather have an example look to the giants last season.

 

[ivo610]

We had a chnace to grab Lynch last year and blew it....go figure. TT needs to not be so passive.

Maybe I missed it, but when last season did Seattle try and trade lynch?

Or are you talking about 2010? ... Yes TT blew the 2010 season for the packers by not trading for lynch. You hit it on the head. He should be fired. Stupid GM on the year doesn't know what he is doing!!! Grrrr

 

[rodell330]

Maybe I missed it, but when last season did Seattle try and trade lynch?

Or are you talking about 2010? ... Yes TT blew the 2010 season for the packers by not trading for lynch. You hit it on the head. He should be fired. Stupid GM on the year doesn't know what he is doing!!! Grrrr

yes 2010...and no TT shouldn't be fiered. Never said that, however he is to reluctant when it comes to trading imo. You are right about one thing tho, running the ball to be effective passing it is a myth.

 

[ivo610]

yes 2010...and no TT shouldn't be fiered. Never said that, however he is to reluctant when it comes to trading imo. You are right about one thing tho, running the ball to be effective passing it is a myth.

I don't believe TT has ever traded for a starting player. He was close with Tony Gonzalez tho

 

[longtimefan]

Here is a observation

I think everyone would like to have a solid running game...But TT will not go after huge big name guys in trades or even free agency

Making threads every day wont change that fact...People need to really move on, and accept there is a very slim chance of him doing it.

 

[Raptorman]

No it's a myth. It's been proven its a myth.
You have teams with terrible running games winning the SB, if you don't like numbers and would rather have an example look to the giants last season.

A myth? Proven? Where? When? The Giants one year? Lets see what the Giants had. Two backs Jacobs and Bradshaw that combined for 1200+ yards. The Giants as a whole only had 1400+. But here's the rub, they could run the ball when they wanted to. While not in the numbers of high rushing yards of Denver or Houston last year they are only slightly off the number of the two top backs of teams that win the Super Bowl.

Packers 1996  Bennett 899  Levens 566    1465 Yards
Broncos 1997  Davis 1750  Hebron 222    1972 Yards
Broncos 1998  David 2008  Loville 161    2169 Yards
Rams 1999    Faulk 1381  Holcombe 294  1675 Yards
Ravens 2000  Lewis 1364  Holnes 588    1952 Yards
Pats 2001    Smith 1157  Faulk 169      1326 Yards
Tampa 2002    Pittman 718  Alstott 548    1329 Yards
Pats 2003    Smith 642    Faulk 638      1280 Yards
Pats 2004    Dillon 1635  Faulk 255      1890 Yards
Pitt 2005    Bettis 1202  Bettis 368    1570 Yards
Colts 2006    Addi 1081    Rhodes 641    1722 Yards
Giants 2007  Jacobs 1009  Ward 602      1611 Yards
Pitt 2008    Parker 791  Moore 588      1379 Yards
Saints 2009  Thomas 793  Bell  655      1448 Yards
Packers 2010  Jackson 703  Khun 281        984 Yards
Giants 2011  Jacobs 571  Bradshaw 659  1230 Yards

Now these are just the numbers for the two top RB's for each team. For example, the Packers in 2010, Rodgers was the second leading rusher not Khun. Add Rodgers and you get another 356 yards to that 984. But rushing don't matter. Which one of these sets numbers proves running the ball to win the Super Bowl is a myth?

 

[ivo610]

A myth? Proven? Where? When? The Giants one year? Lets see what the Giants had. Two backs Jacobs and Bradshaw that combined for 1200+ yards. The Giants as a whole only had 1400+. But here's the rub, they could run the ball when they wanted to. While not in the numbers of high rushing yards of Denver or Houston last year they are only slightly off the number of the two top backs of teams that win the Super Bowl.

Packers 1996 Bennett 899 Levens 566 1465 Yards
Broncos 1997 Davis 1750 Hebron 222 1972 Yards
Broncos 1998 David 2008 Loville 161 2169 Yards
Rams 1999 Faulk 1381 Holcombe 294 1675 Yards
Ravens 2000 Lewis 1364 Holnes 588 1952 Yards
Pats 2001 Smith 1157 Faulk 169 1326 Yards
Tampa 2002 Pittman 718 Alstott 548 1329 Yards
Pats 2003 Smith 642 Faulk 638 1280 Yards
Pats 2004 Dillon 1635 Faulk 255 1890 Yards
Pitt 2005 Bettis 1202 Bettis 368 1570 Yards
Colts 2006 Addi 1081 Rhodes 641 1722 Yards
Giants 2007 Jacobs 1009 Ward 602 1611 Yards
Pitt 2008 Parker 791 Moore 588 1379 Yards
Saints 2009 Thomas 793 Bell 655 1448 Yards
Packers 2010 Jackson 703 Khun 281 984 Yards
Giants 2011 Jacobs 571 Bradshaw 659 1230 Yards

"In theory, rushing YPA makes a lot of sense. The more efficient you are at gaining rushing yards, the better the rushing team you are. However, unlike the passing game, rushing YPA does not correlate to winning, practically making it a trivial, irrelevant stat.

Whether you run for under 4.0 (.758) or greater than 5.0 (.767), as long as you hit 30 carries you are likely going to win the game over three-quarters of the time. The rushing effectiveness is irrelevant as the carries themselves tell us a lot about how the game played out.

Likewise, if you failed to exceed 20 carries, it does not matter if you averaged over 5.0 (.084) or under 4.0 (.095), you likely lost the game over 90 percent of the time.

Even if you average over 6.0 YPC, teams have a record of 15-169 (.082) when they are at 20 carries or less. In that case, it is likely one long run is boosting the average. No matter how good one run is, it still only can help you for one drive in a game."

- cold hard football facts is credited with that one.

Pwning a Vikings troll always feels good.

~~~~~~~~~`

link added by longtimefan

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.co...study-the-evolution-nfl-pass-run-ratio/15992/

 

[12theTruth]

Stats can be sliced and skewed many ways. Since most of the games the Packers don't have over 30 attempts and regardless of attempts a total combined yardage of 70 rushing yards won't get it done on a consistant basis.

I'd advocate a better way to gauge running game effectiveness is short yardage running attempts conversion percentage along with time of possession. MM is shying away a bit from his total reliance on his attempts based focus lately.

 

[Raptorman]

"In theory, rushing YPA makes a lot of sense. The more efficient you are at gaining rushing yards, the better the rushing team you are. However, unlike the passing game, rushing YPA does not correlate to winning, practically making it a trivial, irrelevant stat.

Whether you run for under 4.0 (.758) or greater than 5.0 (.767), as long as you hit 30 carries you are likely going to win the game over three-quarters of the time. The rushing effectiveness is irrelevant as the carries themselves tell us a lot about how the game played out.

Likewise, if you failed to exceed 20 carries, it does not matter if you averaged over 5.0 (.084) or under 4.0 (.095), you likely lost the game over 90 percent of the time.

Even if you average over 6.0 YPC, teams have a record of 15-169 (.082) when they are at 20 carries or less. In that case, it is likely one long run is boosting the average. No matter how good one run is, it still only can help you for one drive in a game."

- cold hard football facts is credited with that one.

Pwning a Vikings troll always feels good.

So Provide a link when you quote. And you didn't own me. It proves the point that you need a running game. Something you have been adamant about not needing. And if rushing YPA does not matter why does Passing YPA matter? What they are saying is that a 20 yard pass does more than a 20 yard run. It's still 20 yards. So if a team A and B are playing and team A rushes for 25 carries and most of those carries end up with negative yards, and team B rushes for 15 carries, all for positive yardage team is more likely to win.

 

[ivo610]

So Provide a link when you quote. And you didn't own me. It proves the point that you need a running game. Something you have been adamant about not needing. And if rushing YPA does not matter why does Passing YPA matter? What they are saying is that a 20 yard pass does more than a 20 yard run. It's still 20 yards. So if a team A and B are playing and team A rushes for 25 carries and most of those carries end up with negative yards, and team B rushes for 15 carries, all for positive yardage team is more likely to win.

Continuous trolling from a Vikings fan. Burn you up that you got pwned?

I have continuously said its the number not the quality of runs. But go ahead and continue making up crap. Ignore the argument I just had over the word "effective" when talking about running the ball.

Here ya go. Hope it's not over your head. I am sure you will attempt to misconstrue it.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.co...study-the-evolution-nfl-pass-run-ratio/15992/

 

[longtimefan]

Looking at the link for myself..Posting things relevant to this topic

Look at the two dozen teams since the merger to have a rushing YPA of over 5.0:

**CANT PASTE THE GRAPH, DOESN'T PASTE CORRECTLY**

We have 24 teams, and 14 of them failed to even make the playoffs, including nine of the top 13 teams. These 24 teams won 51.7 percent of their games.

The postseason “success” is even more off-putting, with a 6-10 record. That includes some of the most fortunate wins in playoff history:

• The only playoff win by the top 15 teams belongs to the 1998 49ers when they overcame a missed Jerry Rice fumble and got a game-winning touchdown pass to Terrell Owens to beat Green Bay.
• The first playoff win in the history of the Pittsburgh Steelers was thanks to Franco Harris’ Immaculate Reception to beat the Oakland Raiders in 1972.
• Green Bay advanced in 2003 after Matt Hasselbeck got the ball and wanted to score, marking the first NFL playoff game to end in overtime on a defensive return touchdown when Al Harris scored the winning pick six.
• The 1971 Dolphins’ path to three straight Super Bowls may have started one-and-done if not for a double-overtime win in Kansas City in the longest game in NFL history.

The list also includes two teams from last season: No. 4 Carolina Panthers (5.41 YPC) and No. 11 Minnesota Vikings (5.17 YPC). The teams combined to win just nine games in 2011, and that includes a head-to-head meeting.

The correlation between rushing YPC and win percentage for the 1,221 teams is 0.17, which is not strong at all.

If rushing YPC is not a good way to evaluate the effectiveness of a team’s running game, then what is? Plain old yards, and of course carries, correlate well with winning, but that again is the result of teams with the lead running clock.

Pass/Run Ratios for Super Bowl Winners

Finally, we will conclude with a look at the pass-run ratio for all 46 Super Bowl champions. Beyond the percentages, you will see where the team ranked that season in each category.

The average Super Bowl winner runs the ball 51.35 percent of the time, and since the merger, ranks 9.2 in run ratio (or 20.9 in pass ratio).

I snipped this to more modern


Pass Ratio Rk Run Ratio Rk

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Raptorman]

Continuous trolling from a Vikings fan. Burn you up that you got pwned?

I have continuously said its the number not the quality of runs. But go ahead and continue making up crap. Ignore the argument I just had over the word "effective" when talking about running the ball.

Quotes you made about the effectiveness of running the ball.

Still waiting for proof you need a run game to succeed... Maybe you should check the grassy knoll”

“Games are won and lost by the passing game. It's a sign you are doing well when you can afford to run.”

“No proof exists of correlation between a good run game and winning games.

If you blame today on the run game, you're the one who is missing something.”

“I know it's hard for some people to accept you can win in the modern era with an ineffective run game but its true.”

“Early in your post you said there is a correlation between ineffective running and losing games. That's simply not true.”

Quotes you made about running that deal with yards.

“No it's not the same thing. 3 carries during a game is more or less not running the ball. Ineffective running is running it 26 times for 48 yards.”

“Of the last 10 SB winners the avg ranking for running the ball is 17th.”

“The avg team over the past 10 years playing in the superbowl is also ranked 17th in rushing.”

“ I look at those numbers and see ineffective running but still getting enough attempts. I think we view 2.7 yards a carry differently.”

“From the 2011 season... of the top 5 rushing teams, 2 went to the playoffs. Of the bottom 5 rushing teams, 2 went to the playoffs.”

“Last season we ranked 27th in league rushing, and we currently rank 22nd.”

“Rushing yards are rushing yards. The team averages 3.9 yards a carry going into this game.

And finally quote you made were you talk about the number of run over yards.

“Even Bill Parcells has been quoted as saying its not how well you run the ball, but how often.”

“Incorrect, you are reading your own evidence wrong. It's been proven there is a correlation between the amount of runs and winning, but nothing to prove ineffective running loses games.”

So excuse the heck out of me if I am a little confused about exactly what you are talking about.

 

[HardRightEdge]

A myth? Proven? Where? When? The Giants one year? Lets see what the Giants had. Two backs Jacobs and Bradshaw that combined for 1200+ yards. The Giants as a whole only had 1400+. But here's the rub, they could run the ball when they wanted to. While not in the numbers of high rushing yards of Denver or Houston last year they are only slightly off the number of the two top backs of teams that win the Super Bowl.

Packers 1996  Bennett 899  Levens 566    1465 Yards
Broncos 1997  Davis 1750  Hebron 222    1972 Yards
Broncos 1998  David 2008  Loville 161    2169 Yards
Rams 1999    Faulk 1381  Holcombe 294  1675 Yards
Ravens 2000  Lewis 1364  Holnes 588    1952 Yards
Pats 2001    Smith 1157  Faulk 169      1326 Yards
Tampa 2002    Pittman 718  Alstott 548    1329 Yards
Pats 2003    Smith 642    Faulk 638      1280 Yards
Pats 2004    Dillon 1635  Faulk 255      1890 Yards
Pitt 2005    Bettis 1202  Bettis 368    1570 Yards
Colts 2006    Addi 1081    Rhodes 641    1722 Yards
Giants 2007  Jacobs 1009  Ward 602      1611 Yards
Pitt 2008    Parker 791  Moore 588      1379 Yards
Saints 2009  Thomas 793  Bell  655      1448 Yards
Packers 2010  Jackson 703  Khun 281        984 Yards
Giants 2011  Jacobs 571  Bradshaw 659  1230 Yards

Now these are just the numbers for the two top RB's for each team. For example, the Packers in 2010, Rodgers was the second leading rusher not Khun. Add Rodgers and you get another 356 yards to that 984. But rushing don't matter. Which one of these sets numbers proves running the ball to win the Super Bowl is a myth?

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[longtimefan]

A myth? Proven? Where? When? The Giants one year? Lets see what the Giants had. Two backs Jacobs and Bradshaw that combined for 1200+ yards. The Giants as a whole only had 1400+. But here's the rub, they could run the ball when they wanted to. While not in the numbers of high rushing yards of Denver or Houston last year they are only slightly off the number of the two top backs of teams that win the Super Bowl.

Packers 1996  Bennett 899  Levens 566    1465 Yards
Broncos 1997  Davis 1750  Hebron 222    1972 Yards
Broncos 1998  David 2008  Loville 161    2169 Yards
Rams 1999    Faulk 1381  Holcombe 294  1675 Yards
Ravens 2000  Lewis 1364  Holnes 588    1952 Yards
Pats 2001    Smith 1157  Faulk 169      1326 Yards
Tampa 2002    Pittman 718  Alstott 548    1329 Yards
Pats 2003    Smith 642    Faulk 638      1280 Yards
Pats 2004    Dillon 1635  Faulk 255      1890 Yards
Pitt 2005    Bettis 1202  Bettis 368    1570 Yards
Colts 2006    Addi 1081    Rhodes 641    1722 Yards
Giants 2007  Jacobs 1009  Ward 602      1611 Yards
Pitt 2008    Parker 791  Moore 588      1379 Yards
Saints 2009  Thomas 793  Bell  655      1448 Yards
Packers 2010  Jackson 703  Khun 281        984 Yards
Giants 2011  Jacobs 571  Bradshaw 659  1230 Yards

Now these are just the numbers for the two top RB's for each team. For example, the Packers in 2010, Rodgers was the second leading rusher not Khun. Add Rodgers and you get another 356 yards to that 984. But rushing don't matter. Which one of these sets numbers proves running the ball to win the Super Bowl is a myth?

When compared to the rest of the league we have

Giants last place
Packers 24th
Saints 6th
Pitts 23rd
Giants 4th
Colts 18th
Pitts 5th
Ne 7th
Ne 27th
Tampa 27th
Ne 13th
Baltimore 5th
St Louis 5th

Avg of them is 13th

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

Even mike & mike in the morning said this and this was my take on Alex smith before they even said it:

the reason his completion % was so high is that he was dinking & dunking. Short little 5 yard passes and screen passes that let his WR's or RB's make the play for yardage. Hell, i bet I could complete at least 50% of the passes he threw...lol Granted his run game is badA$$, but Alex smith is not that good of a QB, he is a 2nd teir QB. His short "safe" passes are what gives him the ability to have a good completion %

Alex smith & Christian Ponder = same QB
Both are to scared to throw the ball up, both are to conservative, both are OVERRATED.

 

[longtimefan]

Even mike & mike in the morning said this and this was my take on Alex smith before they even said it:

the reason his completion % was so high is that he was dinking & dunking. Short little 5 yard passes and screen passes that let his WR's or RB's make the play for yardage. Hell, i bet I could complete at least 50% of the passes he threw...lol Granted his run game is badA$$, but Alex smith is not that good of a QB, he is a 2nd teir QB. His short "safe" passes are what gives him the ability to have a good completion %

Alex smith & Christian Ponder = same QB
Both are to scared to throw the ball up, both are to conservative, both are OVERRATED.

He had 10.55 yards per completion vs the Packers..

For the season 7.9 yards per pass....145 completions 209 attps 1659 yards

Rodgers is 7.3 yards per pass...205 completions 297 attps 2165 yards

 

[rodell330]

WE NEED A RUNNING GAME TO GET WHERE WE WANT TO GO...WHY WHY WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT THIS FACT?. EVEN WHEN WE WON THE SUPER BOWL WE FOUND A RUNNING GAME WITH STARKS THROUGHOUT THE PLAYOFFS. THAT IS A FACT.....AND YES I AM YELLING BECAUSE THIS SHOULDN'T EVEN BE A DEBATE TO THOSE OF US WHO TRULY UNDERSTAND THE GAME OF FOOTBALL.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

He had 10.55 yards per completion vs the Packers..

For the season 7.9 yards per pass....145 completions 209 attps 1659 yards

Rodgers is 7.3 yards per pass...205 completions 297 attps 2165 yards

That may all be true, but a pass thrown for 5 yards to its target and then the WR runs it up the field for another 10 yds.....that puffs up his stats. Point blank: he is a ****/dunk passer

 

[longtimefan]

That may all be true, but a pass thrown for 5 yards to its target and then the WR runs it up the field for another 10 yds.....that puffs up his stats. Point blank: he is a ****/dunk passer

But we cant see that from just his stats..

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

But we cant see that from just his stats..

You can when you watch the game...lol

 

[El Guapo]

Ford