1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

football outsiders article on the running game.

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ivo610, Sep 20, 2010.

  1. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,590
    Ratings:
    +4,273
    Please note this is about 7 years old.

    It has always been the conventional wisdom of pro football: establish the run. Winning teams run early. They use the run to set up their passing game later. Even if they don't get too many yards on the ground early, winning teams need to keep running to wear the defense down. Take at the NFL's leaders in team rushing yards, and you'll see a list of winning teams.
    Other football pundits have an alternative theory. They say that winning teams pad their rushing totals by running out leads in the fourth quarter. Losing teams, even those with good running backs, spend the second half passing the ball in order to try to catch up. At the end of the season, even those winning teams that don't run the ball well end up with lots of yards because they've run the ball a lot at the end of games.
    By looking at 2002 play-by-play data, we should be able to figure out which of these axioms is true. Do teams that run the ball early win more games? Or do winning teams, no matter whether they run more or pass more early, gain many of their rushing yards late in games while running out the clock?
    Before we evaluate how teams establish the run, we have to isolate the plays that make up the running game. So for this analysis, I've removed all carries by players other than running backs and fullbacks. When coaches talk about establishing the running game, they don't mean end-arounds or quarterback scrambles. Well, maybe that's what Dan Reeves means, but everyone else is talking about the running backs.
    Once we've removed the quarterback scrambles, the occasional wide receiver carry, and a few muffed (or faked) punts, this becomes the list of the top ten running games in the NFL in 2002:
    1) Miami 2143 yards
    2) Denver 2052 yards
    3) Kansas City 1887 yards
    4) NY Giants 1844 yards
    5) San Diego 1831 yards
    6) San Francisco 1811 yards
    7) Minnesota 1798 yards
    8) Green Bay 1783 yards
    9) Jacksonville 1749 yards
    10) Washington 1682 yards
    Boy, tell me it doesn't surprise you to see Steve Spurrier's offense on this list.
    A look at the top rushing teams doesn't do much for the idea that running the ball is the key to success in today's NFL. As you may know by now, only one of the NFL's top individual rushers made the playoffs: Tiki Barber of the Giants. Looking at the top ten running back totals by team adds two more playoff teams: San Francisco, with their well-regarded tandem of Garrison Hearst and Kevan Barlow, and Green Bay, where Ahman Green battled injuries but had some talented backups, namely Tony Fisher. But the average record of the teams on this list is about 8-8.
    Now that we know which teams got the most yards overall, we can take a look at the teams that did the most to establish the run early. Establishing the run early means running the ball consistently from the very beginning. The adage about establishing the run has always held that you keep calling rushing plays, even if they don't succeed, in order to set up your offense later in the game.
    So here are the five teams in the NFL that did the most to establish the run – the five teams with the most first quarter rushing attempts by running backs:
    1) Tennessee 110 carries
    2t) Houston 108 carries
    2t) San Francisco 108 carries
    4) Cleveland 106 carries
    5) Dallas 101 carries
    Yes, that's right. Only Tennessee worked harder than the lowly expansion Texans at establishing the running game in the first quarter. Doesn't look like it helped Houston win many games, though, and didn't do much for that other team from Texas either. Three playoff teams here, but two duds as well, and none of the NFL's top backs are represented – although the two-headed monster of Hearst and Barlow was as potent as any one back in the NFL.
    So what about the other side? Here are the teams that did the least to establish the run in the first quarter:
    28) New England 84 carries
    29) Tampa Bay 83 carries
    30) St. Louis 82 carries
    31) Detroit 80 carries
    32) Oakland 71 carries
    They say you need to run early to win, but Bill Callahan isn't listening, because the 11-5 Oakland Raiders ran, far and away, the fewest running plays in the first quarter. This list has only two playoff teams, but given that Cleveland got the wild card on tiebreaker -- despite the same 9-7 record as the Patriots -- I think you can call the two lists even.
    OK, some may argue, it doesn't really matter if the Texans try to establish the run. If you don't have a good running back and a good line, there is nothing to establish. So let's look at the top five teams for running back yards in the first quarter:
    1) Denver 537 yards
    2) Miami 472 yards
    3) San Diego 467 yards
    4) Buffalo 462 yards
    5) Washington 457 yards
    Ladies and gentlemen, the "just missed the playoffs" all-stars! The five teams that gained the most yards on the ground in the first quarter all finished between 7-9 and 9-7, and none made the postseason.
    On the other side, the five teams with the fewest yards on the ground in the first quarter do help to support the conventional wisdom that those who do not gain on the ground to start the game are doomed to failure:
    28) Chicago 299 yards
    29) New England 283 yards
    30) Cincinnati 279 yards
    31) Carolina 264 yards
    32) Baltimore 259 yards
    Four losing teams, and one 9-7 squad whose fans spent the whole year calling for more of the running game. Then again, teams that don't get a lot of offense early, rushing or passing, aren't likely to win a lot of ballgames.
    So if playoff teams aren't running up all those yards early in games while they are establishing the run, when are they getting them? The flip side of the "establish the run" argument says that winning teams have a lot of rushing yards because they are running out leads in the fourth quarter. So here are the five teams that led the NFL in fourth-quarter rushing attempts from running backs in 2002:
    1) Philadelphia 124 carries
    2) Miami 121 carries
    3t) Pittsburgh 116 carries
    3t) Carolina 116 carries
    3t) Kansas City 115 carries
    Now that looks like a list of winning football teams, although I'm not sure how Carolina got in there. Continue this list to the top ten, and you add five playoff teams: Tennessee, Oakland, the Giants, Green Bay, and Atlanta. Yes, that same Oakland team that ran only 72 times in the first quarter, when it was establishing its offense, ran 111 times in the fourth quarter, when it was grinding down the clock.
    As you would expect, the bottom of this list reveals five of the NFL's poorest teams from 2002:
    28) Cincinnati 80 carries
    29) Houston 78 carries
    30) Arizona 73 carries
    31) Chicago 72 carries
    32) Detroit 67 carries
    So far, evidence would seem to suggest that establishing the run isn't really that important for winning games in today's NFL. The evidence also seems to back those who say that winning teams build their rushing totals while running out their leads. But in the interest of space, I've given a lot of top five and bottom five lists. What about the other 22 teams?
    As it turns out, looking at all 32 teams together reinforces what we've seen so far: that more rushing attempts early don't indicate a winning team, but rushing attempts late do.
    Statisticians have a concept called the correlation coefficient that measures how much one variable influences another variable. A correlation of 1 means the two variables are completely connected; 0 means they have no connection.
    The correlation between first quarter rushing attempts and team wins is a measly .171. That means there is almost no connection between running a lot in the first quarter, and winning a lot of games. The correlation between fourth quarter rushing attempts and team wins, on the other hand, is .750. That's a sizeable relationship.
    By the way, the correlation for first quarter rushing yards and team wins is a bit higher, though still not substantial, at .260. The correlation for fourth quarter rushing yards and team wins is a much lower, at .486. So early in games, it is more important to gain yards than just to run the ball for the heck of it, but at the end of the game the number of runs is more important than how many yards they gain.
    To show how winning teams build their rushing statistics by running out the clock with a lead, here are the top ten NFL teams in rushing when a) leading by 14 or more in the third quarter, or b) leading by 7 or more in the fourth quarter. Along with the total yards they gained running out their leads, I've included what percentage of their total running game this represents, with the average of all 32 NFL teams being 15%.
    Miami 552 yards 26%
    Oakland 550 yards 36%
    Philadelphia 540 yards 34%
    Tampa Bay 422 yards 29%
    Tennessee 348 yards 23%
    New England 332 yards 25%
    Denver 319 yards 16%
    Green Bay 316 yards 18%
    Pittsburgh 314 yards 20%
    Atlanta 309 yards 20%
    That's a pretty good list of wining football teams. Seven of these teams made the playoffs, and the other three went 9-7 and missed the playoffs by tiebreaker. But while all winning teams pad their rushing totals by running out the clock when leading late in games, those yards don't necessarily represent the same amount of the running game for all winning teams. Philadelphia and Oakland got more than one-third of their rushing yards while running out the clock, but Denver and Green Bay built much more of their rushing total earlier in games.
    Incidentally, the playoff team with the fewest rushing yards in these "run out the clock" situations? Indianapolis, with only 93 yards: a mere 7% of their rushing total.
    So in 2002, at least, the axiom that teams need to establish the run early to win did not hold true. Some teams won by running early. Other teams won without running early. It also appears that teams with high rushing totals aren't necessarily establishing their running game from the first snap onwards -- but when a winning football team has a high rushing total, it is very likely they got many of those yards while running out the clock.
    Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 14 Jul 2003
     
  2. SpartaChris

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +965
    This touches on a point I made in the Lynch and Jacobs threads- Colts were dead last and Chargers were second to last in rushing last season, yet both won enough games to clinch bye weeks, and one even made it to the Super Bowl.

    You don't need a stout running game to win in today's league. Sure, it helps, but it's needed. It just needs to be good enough.
     
  3. PackerFan87

    PackerFan87 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +13
    Meh you could say that about any position probably and some team has done it.
    You don't need a quarterback to win either. Steelers win with their Defence :neo:
     
  4. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    I made this point in another thread.

    Every team has an identity. But ultimately, it doesn't matter if they can run the ball, if they don't have solid QB play. Great Ds will simply stack the line, play agressively, and force the QB to win against them. The Giants were a running team in 07, but it wasn't Jacobs, or Bradshaw who won them their SB. Eli was a monster that game, and so was Plaxico. The only time a team without an elite QB won a SB was in 05 with Roethlisberger. And he wasn't elite back then, but he is now.

    Running yards and yards per carry isn't a statement if the running game is good or not. The definition of what works and what doesn't isn't the same for every team.

    Our running game is working. Are we scoring a ton? YES. Are we able to utilize play actions effectively? YES. Are we getting run TDs in the redzone? YES. Are we fumbling the ball? NO. Are our RBs picking up the blitz when asked to? YES.

    Our running game is working.
     
  5. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    In 05.

    If Roethlisberger doesn't make that picture perfect pass to Holmes in the SB, they lose it, quite simply.

    Nowadays, you cannot shut down offenses. With the multitude of personel, matchups, and spread offenses, it's not possible to keep an elite O under 14 points. And if your D is on the field the whole time, if your O can't keep drives alive, it's game over.

    You need to be able to outscore the opposition. And only teams with elite QBs can do it. Sure, football is not an exact science. There will be an anomaly now and then, like in 05, but, overall, the most important piece of a championship team is the QB. Rule of thumb, you don't have one that can win you a game (instead of just managing one), you're not gonna have the hardware in the end of the season.
     
  6. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,590
    Ratings:
    +4,273
    They also have a pretty stellar QB. You know, the one that slaughtered us last season.
     
  7. PackerFan87

    PackerFan87 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +13
    They beat the Titans with a 4th string QB lol.
     
  8. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,590
    Ratings:
    +4,273
    Yeah the titans... real great team there.

    Will they do fine until Big Ben gets back? yes. Will they win the SB without him? most likely not.
     
  9. SpartaChris

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +965
    Yeah, that game was ALL defense. I mean, come on, Chris Johnson was held to 30 something yards. Not quite the offensive juggernaut there.
     
  10. aaronqb

    aaronqb Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    583
    Ratings:
    +73
    retired
     
  11. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    Okay...

    But, that's why, you know, I said "In 05" in my post...
    He mentioned that they didn't win with a QB. And I said, yeah, they didn't win, IN 05. 05, 01 (worst SB of all time IMHO) and 03, the exceptions to the rule, where a team with a mediocre QB won the SB. If you look back to the 90's, only Washington won it without a QB in 92. The rest, all had GREAT QBs. Not all of them had great RBs.

    That's not properly a point, but I can't even remember who were the runners for the teams. But I remember every single QB that won the SB. Because it always ends up being the QB who has to make the key plays.
     
  12. dooneybourke

    dooneybourke Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    they are very good writing themes.
     
  13. JBlood

    JBlood Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,158
    Ratings:
    +1,312
    Good article Ivo. Advance NFL stats has a similar one:

    Advanced NFL Stats: Passing = Winning

    One good quote in this article sums it all up: "It's not that running doesn't matter. It's just that passing is far more important."

    Before 1980 only one QB had thrown for more than 4000 yards--Joe Namath in 1967 (which is much of the reason he's in the HOF). Since then, it has happened more than 70 times, 10 alone last year.

    The NFL is all about passing on offense, and stopping the pass on defense.
     

Share This Page