The Value of Run Defense

Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,612
Reaction score
1,326
Funny, but predictable that you didn’t get an answer to your question about who else Gluten should have picked at #2.

And talking about the tough yard, Dillon put up a 40” vertical at the combine, and subsequent reports are that he has about 5% body fat. So if he can’t run through a 1-yard defense (he can), he can probably jump over them.

Initially I’ll admit I thought Dillon was a reach. I don’t feel that way anymore. And I don’t think he’s on the board with our 3rd round pick. It was Gluten’s best pick of the draft. Real NFL production is everything, but I feel good about the guy. And he can probably keep Jones’ carries to under 20 a game, where he needs to be to avoid injury.
It’s absolutely true. To date. No one I’ve asked (roughly 4 posters) has provided me a direct answer to the #62 solution for being a highly impactful player in Rookie season to take us over the threshold and to a SB. I had 1 finally respond after squeezing them 3 times!
It’s ok though, because I already knew there’s a 95% there wasn’t an answer to that question anyone could predict beforehand. I just wanted to track said player fir the fun of it is all. I’m not normally one to rub it in someone’s face and I likely wouldn’t have because it’s a little childish.
But I still find it intriguing that everyone’s got lots of critique but zero answers that they are proud of and willing to standby. I guess the world is filled with lots and lots of bark and no bite. That common, playing safe stuff doesn’t impress me. I respect trying and failing far more than *****footing around.

I predict Dillon is going to give opposing Run Defenses absolute fits once he’s given ample opportunity. He should be as much fun to watch as Lacy in his formative years. Love me some oldschool smashmouth football.
 
Last edited:

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,585
Reaction score
275
It’s absolutely true. To date. No one I’ve asked (roughly 4 posters) has provided me a direct answer to the #62 solution for being a highly impactful player in Rookie season to take us over the threshold and to a SB. I had 1 finally respond after squeezing them 3 times!
It’s ok though, because I already knew there’s a 95% there wasn’t an answer to that question anyone could predict beforehand. I just wanted to track said player fir the fun of it is all. I’m not normally one to rub it in someone’s face and I likely wouldn’t have because it’s a little childish.
But I still find it intriguing that everyone’s got lots of critique but zero answers that they are proud of and willing to standby. I guess the world is filled with lots and lots of bark and no bite. That common, playing safe stuff doesn’t impress me. I respect trying and failing far more than *****footing around.

I predict Dillon is going to give opposing Run Defenses absolute fits once he’s given ample opportunity. He should be as much fun to watch as Lacy in his formative years. Love me some oldschool smashmouth football.
Yeah I’ve asked the same question of this commenter and got what you got, zilch. At least some other commenters replied that, for the most part, they would have taken Pittman in round 1. I respect people who identify a problem and then provide an answer. Without that, the initial comment is without merit.

As I said, I’ve come around to Dillon. First round pick aside (well, for the moment), Gluten nailed it with Dillon. If he produces as expected, he provides more value than a rookie wideout IMO. Better yet, he gives GB an answer if Jones walks next year. And for those who said Dillon was a reach in round 2 (and that included me), he would have been gone late in the 3rd.

I respect trying and failing and then trying again as well. Fortunately, most of the commenters on here have some dignity. Yeah I was mostly critical of the draft and probably would have taken a WR in round 1 like Pittman. But I trust the GM knows a little more than me. Time will tell, but I’m excited about the Dillon pick, and think the late round pick of Runyan will also pay dividends.

IF we have a season, that is!
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,317
Reaction score
1,675
I think you will be eating a lot of crow.

I don't think so. Even if Gary develops into an impact edge rusher at some point Gutekunst using the 12th pick on him after signing the Smiths in free agency definitely wasn't a move to win now.

As I said, I’ve come around to Dillon. First round pick aside (well, for the moment), Gluten nailed it with Dillon. If he produces as expected, he provides more value than a rookie wideout IMO. Better yet, he gives GB an answer if Jones walks next year. And for those who said Dillon was a reach in round 2 (and that included me), he would have been gone late in the 3rd.

I'm actually shocked about how many posters believe a backup running back will have more impact than a starting wide receiver.

As a side note we already agreed there's no way of knowing Dillon would have been gone at #94. In addition if Jones walks away in free agency next offseason the Packers should have replaced him in the 2021 draft.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
364
I don't think so. Even if Gary develops into an impact edge rusher at some point Gutekunst using the 12th pick on him after signing the Smiths in free agency definitely wasn't a move to win now.
Actually I was referring to the way that The Pack will perform this year. You sound to me like we will have a down year. Very negative comments. But on the other, I am hopeful that Gary will play more and play well.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,429
Reaction score
1,057
I'm actually shocked about how many posters believe a backup running back will have more impact than a starting wide receiver.

I think it depends on whether Dillon passes Williams for touches as many suspect he will do. If that occurs there is a SOLID chance he has more touches (chances of impact) than any starting WR not named Adams.

So I think it depends on how one arrives at their opinion of "impact". If one solely bases that opinion off of the times the guy touches the ball it is very possible. However, I think the impact of a true #2 starting WR to the overall offense would be much more beneficial overall than Dillon being the RB2.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,585
Reaction score
275
I don't think so. Even if Gary develops into an impact edge rusher at some point Gutekunst using the 12th pick on him after signing the Smiths in free agency definitely wasn't a move to win now.



I'm actually shocked about how many posters believe a backup running back will have more impact than a starting wide receiver.

As a side note we already agreed there's no way of knowing Dillon would have been gone at #94. In addition if Jones walks away in free agency next offseason the Packers should have replaced him in the 2021 draft.
Someone else asked you this but I don’t think you answered. Aside from the lousy first round pick, who would you have taken at #2 instead of Dillon?
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,429
Reaction score
1,057
Someone else asked you this but I don’t think you answered. Aside from the lousy first round pick, who would you have taken at #2 instead of Dillon?

I believe if I'm not mistaken Capt said he wouldn't have been opposed to some of the WR left like Tyler Johnson, Duvernay, Gibson and Edwards.
 

Fat Dogs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
427
Reaction score
28
Because the Packers' run defense was pretty weak all season in 2019, and then got really exposed against the 49ers in the playoffs, it has been a pretty common topic of discussion.

That got me thinking about the value of run defense, generally speaking, in today's NFL. So as is my inclination, I did some digging and aggregated some data. What I found out was pretty interesting.

For a sample size, I looked at all of the teams to make the playoffs in the past three seasons. I assessed their run defense based on two measures: yards per carry allowed, and run defense DVOA.

Here's what I found.

2019

YPC Allowed:

  1. TEN; 4.0 (7th)
  2. PHI; 4.1 (9th)
  3. NE; 4.2 (13th)
  4. NO; 4.2 (14th)
  5. BUF; 4.3 (18th)
  6. MIN; 4.3 (19th)
  7. BAL; 4.4 (20th)
  8. SF; 4.5 (22nd)
  9. GB; 4.7 (24th)
  10. HOU; 4.8 (27th)
  11. KC; 4.9 (28th)
  12. SEA; 4.9 (29th)
Four of twelve playoff teams were in the top half of the league in YPC allowed, and eight were in the bottom half. The two Super Bowl teams were 22nd and 28th, and the eventual winner was actually one of the teams worse than the Packers in this regard.

Additionally, those 4 teams in the top half of the league in YPC allowed combined for 2 wins in the playoffs, for a win rate of .5 per team. The 8 teams in the bottom half of the league in YPC allowed combined for 9 wins in the playoffs, for a win rate of 1.1 per team.

DVOA:
  1. PHI: -18.5 (4th)
  2. NO: -14.3 (5th)
  3. NE: -14.0 (6th)
  4. MIN: -13.1 (8th)
  5. TEN: -12.6 (9th)
  6. SF: -12.0 (11th)
  7. BUF: -8.9 (18th)
  8. BAL: -7.0 (20th)
  9. HOU: -5.0 (22nd)
  10. GB: -0.8 (23rd)
  11. SEA: 1.0 (26th)
  12. KC: 4.2 (29th)
DVOA paints a little bit more balanced picture-- 6 teams in the top half, and 6 in the bottom. The top half teams accounted for 5 wins, for a win rate of .83, and the bottom half teams accounted for 6 wins, for a win rate of 1.0.

2018

YPC Allowed:
  1. HOU: 3.4 (1st)
  2. NO: 3.6 (2nd)
  3. BAL: 3.7 (3rd)
  4. DAL: 3.8 (4th)
  5. CHI: 3.8 (5th)
  6. IND: 3.9 (6th)
  7. LAC: 4.3 (13th)
  8. PHI: 4.7 (25th)
  9. SEA: 4.9 (29th)
  10. NE: 4.9 (30th)
  11. KC: 5.0 (31st)
  12. LAR: 5.1 (32nd)
Very interesting results, as the elite teams and the terrible teams in this metric all made the tournament, and nothing in between (other than the Chargers, and really they hardly count, since no one gives a **** about them). Once again, the two Super Bowl teams, the Rams and Patriots, were poor in this metric-- 30th and 32nd. Overall, 7 PO teams were top half of the league, and 5 were bottom half.

Those 7 top half combined for 4 PO wins, for a win rate of .57. The 5 bottom half teams combined for 7 wins, for a win rate of 1.4.

DVOA:
  1. HOU: -30.1 (1st)
  2. CHI: -27.3 (2nd)
  3. NO: -24.9 (3rd)
  4. IND: -18.8 (4th)
  5. DAL: -17.3 (5th)
  6. BAL: -16.9 (6th)
  7. PHI: -12.9 (9th)
  8. LAC: -12 (10th)
  9. SEA: -7.6 (17th)
  10. NE: -7.0 (19th)
  11. LAR: 1.1 (27th)
  12. KC: 9.8 (32nd)
Similar story, with just a little shift in the direction of plus run defense. By this measure, 8 of the PO team were top half, and 4 were bottom half. Those 8 teams accounted for 5 wins, for a .63 win rate. The 4 bottom half teams accounted for 6 wins, for a 1.5 win rate.

2017

YPC Allowed:

  1. TEN: 3.6 (4th)
  2. MIN: 3.7 (5th)
  3. PHI: 3.8 (7th)
  4. CAR: 4.0 (14th)
  5. ATL: 4.1 (18th)
  6. BUF: 4.3 (24th)
  7. KC: 4.3 (25th)
  8. JAC: 4.3 (26th)
  9. NO: 4.4 (27th)
  10. PIT: 4.4 (28th)
  11. LAR: 4.7 (30th)
  12. NE: 4.7 (31st)
For the first team in the data, a plus run defense team was in the Super Bowl, though the other one (NE) was poor in this metric. 4 top half teams made the PO's, and 8 bottom half teams. Those four teams accounted for 5 wins, for a rate of 1.25. The bottom half teams accounted for 6 wins, for a rate of .75.

DVOA:
  1. PHI: -21.6 (2nd)
  2. CAR: -16.9 (5th)
  3. MIN: -16.9 (6th)
  4. TEN: -15.6 (7th)
  5. PIT: -5.6 (18th)
  6. ATL: -4.3 (20th)
  7. LAR: -4.1 (21st)
  8. NO: -3.7 (23rd)
  9. JAC: -2.8 (27th)
  10. BUF: 2.7 (30th)
  11. NE: 2.8 (31st)
  12. KC: 3.0 (32nd)
Very similar outcomes when you look at it from this angle. Four top half teams that account for 5 wins, for a win rate of 1.25. Eight bottom half teams that account for 6 wins, for a win rate of .75.

General Takeaways:
  • While at times this data seems to be saying that it's actually a good thing to have a bad run defense, we can obviously dismiss that. Correlation is not causation. All else being equal, having a better run D is better than having a worse run D, and I'm not saying any different.
  • This deep dive is of the quick and dirty variety. Using top half vs. bottom half is an imperfect (albeit easy) way to look at the data. A more careful analysis might shift things a bit, but not enough to dramatically change the broad conclusions.
  • *Assuming that this three year sample is reliable* having a good or bad run defense does not seem to have a significant impact on your ability to make the playoffs.
  • *Assuming that this three year sample is reliable* having a good or bad run defense does not seem to have a significant impact on your ability to win games once you're in the playoffs.
  • *Assuming that this three year sample is reliable* having a good or bad run defense does not seem to make much of a difference in a team's ability to make the Super Bowl, or win the Super Bowl.
Conclusion: The Packers should make adjustments to improve the run defense. It's really hard to win a game when you perform as badly as they did in the NFCCG. However, the general importance of run defense overall is minimal. It doesn't make a big difference to a team's chances of having a successful season. It would seem that fans tend to overstate the importance of this particular facet of the game.


This is very interesting. I applaud you for the time and effort that you put into this. There has to be a plausible explanation if these numbers are accurate. How can a Team that allows so much yardage per attempt consistently win games? Here are some of my thoughts. Good teams build leads and then go into prevent D’s. They will allow a trailing team to run clock all day. This same process allows a QB to **** and dunk down the field because the D’s only concern is giving up the big play. This idea also allows a QB to scramble (unscripted run) that still counts towards rushing totals. I wonder how many playoff teams also give up large YPC averages? I’m willing to bet that those playoff teams had above average turnover margins to make up for the yardage given up. My point is stopping the run is important when the game is still in hand. A team that can’t run is forced to throw the ball in down and distance situations producing sacs and turnovers for a defense (the real determining factor) to the outcome of a game.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,585
Reaction score
275
I believe if I'm not mistaken Capt said he wouldn't have been opposed to some of the WR left like Tyler Johnson, Duvernay, Gibson and Edwards.
Thank you Ty. I’ve grown to like the Dillon pick, especially in short yardage and goal line situations. I read up on his combine measurables which were off the charts, and recently read he has 5% body fat. Again, the proof is in production, but I think he will ultimately add more value than a rookie 2nd round WR. That said, I don’t like the first round pick and would have taken a WR, like Pittman, in that round.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,317
Reaction score
1,675
Actually I was referring to the way that The Pack will perform this year. You sound to me like we will have a down year. Very negative comments. But on the other, I am hopeful that Gary will play more and play well.

I predict that the Packers will once again win the division but their record will be worse than last season. As I've posted repeatedly that shouldn't surprise anyone as it's extremel tough to duplicate 13 wins in the NFL no matter what.

Unfortunately I don't believe Gutekunst did good enough this offseason for the Packers to be considered a favorite to win the Super Bowl despite making it to the NFCCG in 2019. That's why I'm disaapointed in the moves the team made over the past few months.

I think it depends on whether Dillon passes Williams for touches as many suspect he will do. If that occurs there is a SOLID chance he has more touches (chances of impact) than any starting WR not named Adams.

So I think it depends on how one arrives at their opinion of "impact". If one solely bases that opinion off of the times the guy touches the ball it is very possible. However, I think the impact of a true #2 starting WR to the overall offense would be much more beneficial overall than Dillon being the RB2.

In my opinion the total amount of touches doesn't seem to be a decent indicator of a player's impact.

Someone else asked you this but I don’t think you answered. Aside from the lousy first round pick, who would you have taken at #2 instead of Dillon?

I actually posted a list of a dozen players I would have preferred the Packers to select at #62 over Dillon here:

https://www.packerforum.com/threads...-the-past-10-seasons.83585/page-4#post-877050

I believe if I'm not mistaken Capt said he wouldn't have been opposed to some of the WR left like Tyler Johnson, Duvernay, Gibson and Edwards.

I might have mentioned Tyler Johnson at some point but never advocated for the Packers to select any of the other wide receivers you mentioned.

I’m willing to bet that those playoff teams had above average turnover margins to make up for the yardage given up.

You're right about the turnover margin. 10 of the top 11 teams in that category made the playoffs last season with the Steelers being the only one missing the postseason.
 
Last edited:

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
364
Unfortunately I don't believe Gutekunst did good enough this offseason for the Packers to be considered a favorite to win the Super Bowl despite making it to the NFCCG in 2019. That's why I'm disaapointed in the moves the team made over the past few months.
Are you disappointed that we are not a favorite to win it? That doesn't bother me at all. Nobody knows until we start playing. And even then.
 

Fat Dogs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
427
Reaction score
28
I predict that the Packers will once again win the division but their record will be worse than last season. As I've posted repeatedly that shouldn't surprise anyone as it's extremel tough to duplicate 13 wins in the NFL no matter what.

Unfortunately I don't believe Gutekunst did good enough this offseason for the Packers to be considered a favorite to win the Super Bowl despite making it to the NFCCG in 2019. That's why I'm disaapointed in the moves the team made over the past few months.



In my opinion the total amount of touches doesn't seem to be a decent indicator of a player's impact.



I actually posted a list of a dozen players I would have preferred the Packers to select at #62 over Dillon here:

https://www.packerforum.com/threads...-the-past-10-seasons.83585/page-4#post-877050



I might have mentioned Tyler Johnson at some point but never advocated for the Packers to select any of the other wide receivers you mentioned.



You're right about the turnover margin. 10 of the top 11 teams in that category made the playoffs last season with the Steelers being the only one missing the postseason.


Thanks for finding that. It only makes sense. These are Rodgers stats in the NFCC 31/39, 326 yards, 2 TD’s (not a bad day.) The packers lead in every major category.

Total yards 358-354.
Time of possession 31:13-28:47
First downs 21-19

yet we trailed 27-0 at the half and were never in any position to win that game. Why? Because we couldn’t stop the run. The Packers turned the ball over 3 times. The 49ers ran the ball where the chances to get a turnover were slim. Try and convince me that it’s a passing league all you want but those stats are padded. Show me a team that wins by throwing and I’ll show you 5 that lose by the same accord. The Value of a run defense is extremely important because you make Offenses pass the ball on your terms. This creates sacs and turnovers.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
364
Sometimes you can watch a game and the stats just don't matter. One team kicked another's *** but the stats don't completely show that. For the most part, stats are for after the game. They don't usually help much during the game.
 

Fat Dogs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
427
Reaction score
28
Sometimes you can watch a game and the stats just don't matter. One team kicked another's *** but the stats don't completely show that. For the most part, stats are for after the game. They don't usually help much during the game.

Yup, the only thing that really matters is the final score.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,317
Reaction score
1,675
Are you disappointed that we are not a favorite to win it? That doesn't bother me at all. Nobody knows until we start playing. And even then.

I'm disappointed because Gutekunst didn't improve the roster this offseason.

The Packers lost Bulaga, Allison, Graham, Martinez and at this point Tramon in free agency while adding Funchess, Hester, Kirksey and Wagner. That doesn't seem to have upgraded the team overall.

On top of it Gutekunst spent the first four picks in the draft on backups with the first rounder not expected to take any meaningful snaps at all in 2020.

Is it possible the Packers end up winning the Super Bowl this season??? Yes. Did they improve their chances by the moves made this offseason??? Hell, no.

Try and convince me that it’s a passing league all you want but those stats are padded. Show me a team that wins by throwing and I’ll show you 5 that lose by the same accord. The Value of a run defense is extremely important because you make Offenses pass the ball on your terms. This creates sacs and turnovers.

Once again you're overreacting to a single game. There's absolutely no doubt the NFL is a passing league and you put way too much stock into defending the run.

Of course there's no way to win a game allowing 6.8 yards per rush on 42 attempts like the Packers did in the NFCCG but that one was an outlier.

Most games are won based on the passing game, just like the Chiefs did in the Super Bowl vs. the Niners just two weeks later.
 

Fat Dogs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
427
Reaction score
28
I'm disappointed because Gutekunst didn't improve the roster this offseason.

The Packers lost Bulaga, Allison, Graham, Martinez and at this point Tramon in free agency while adding Funchess, Hester, Kirksey and Wagner. That doesn't seem to have upgraded the team overall.

On top of it Gutekunst spent the first four picks in the draft on backups with the first rounder not expected to take any meaningful snaps at all in 2020.

Is it possible the Packers end up winning the Super Bowl this season??? Yes. Did they improve their chances by the moves made this offseason??? Hell, no.



Once again you're overreacting to a single game. There's absolutely no doubt the NFL is a passing league and you put way too much stock into defending the run.

Of course there's no way to win a game allowing 6.8 yards per rush on 42 attempts like the Packers did in the NFCCG but that one was an outlier.

Most games are won based on the passing game, just like the Chiefs did in the Super Bowl vs. the Niners just two weeks later.


Ok let’s revisit the playoffs starting with the divisional round. I’ll put all of the winning teams on the left so it will be easy to read.

Titans 22 Ravens 12
88 pass. 365 pass
217 rush. 185 rush


49ers 27. Vikings 10
131 pass. 172 passing
186 rush 21 rush

Chiefs 51. Texans 31
321 pass. 388 pass
118 rush. 94 rush


Packers 28. Seahawks 23
243 pass. 277 pass
109 rush. 110 rush


Chiefs 35. Titans 24
294 pass. 209 pass
112 rush. 85 rush

49ers 37. Packers 20
77 pass. 326 pass
285 rush 62 rush


Chiefs 31. 49ers 20
286 pass. 219 pass
129 rush. 141 rush


The game you pointed out is the only game in which the losing team rushed for more yards. The packers and Seahawks had a one yard difference so I called that a wash. I don’t think it is coincidental that the winning teams were more effective in stopping the run 6 of 7 games. It’s a passing league because of inflated numbers by the QB of losing teams trying to play catch-up. The top 5 passing leaders from 2019 were on teams that didn’t make the playoffs. The leagues leading passer was replaced and wasn’t highly sought after by other teams. Coin it a passing league all you want but 5,000 yards passing and no wins amounts to jack. So yes, NFL teams have to stop the run and force their opponents to pass from down and distance to create sacks and turnovers.
 
Last edited:

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
4,815
Reaction score
337
It’s absolutely true. To date. No one I’ve asked (roughly 4 posters) has provided me a direct answer to the #62 solution for being a highly impactful player in Rookie season to take us over the threshold and to a SB. I had 1 finally respond after squeezing them 3 times!
It’s ok though, because I already knew there’s a 95% there wasn’t an answer to that question anyone could predict beforehand. I just wanted to track said player fir the fun of it is all. I’m not normally one to rub it in someone’s face and I likely wouldn’t have because it’s a little childish.
But I still find it intriguing that everyone’s got lots of critique but zero answers that they are proud of and willing to standby. I guess the world is filled with lots and lots of bark and no bite. That common, playing safe stuff doesn’t impress me. I respect trying and failing far more than *****footing around.

I predict Dillon is going to give opposing Run Defenses absolute fits once he’s given ample opportunity. He should be as much fun to watch as Lacy in his formative years. Love me some oldschool smashmouth football.

Use that pick to trade up in the first round to draft Reagor or Jefferson. Package Aaron Jones and that pick to the Texans for DeAndre Hopkins. Trade that pick for OJ Howard. Lots of other potential uses outside of drafting a guy who already has 845 carries in three years of college (a potential problem for a guy expected to be a workhorse with that kind of running style), is crazy athletic but doesn't have a ton of wiggle if the line doesn't block well, and only caught 21 passes in three seasons. I'm not saying Dillon won't be good, but let's stop pretending the Packers just drafted Barkley; there is a chance that Dillon isn't that great in the NFL.

And while old-school, smashmouth can be fun, it's not really that effective in today's NFL.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,317
Reaction score
1,675
Ok let’s revisit the playoffs starting with the divisional round. I’ll put all of the winning teams on the left so it will be easy to read.

Titans 22 Ravens 12
88 pass. 365 pass
217 rush. 185 rush


49ers 27. Vikings 10
131 pass. 172 passing
186 rush 21 rush

Chiefs 51. Texans 31
321 pass. 388 pass
118 rush. 94 rush


Packers 28. Seahawks 23
243 pass. 277 pass
109 rush. 110 rush


Chiefs 35. Titans 24
294 pass. 209 pass
112 rush. 85 rush

49ers 37. Packers 20
77 pass. 326 pass
285 rush 62 rush


Chiefs 31. 49ers 20
286 pass. 219 pass
129 rush. 141 rush


The game you pointed out is the only game in which the losing team rushed for more yards. The packers and Seahawks had a one yard difference so I called that a wash. I don’t think it is coincidental that the winning teams were more effective in stopping the run 6 of 7 games. It’s a passing league because of inflated numbers by the QB of losing teams trying to play catch-up. The top 5 passing leaders from 2019 were on teams that didn’t make the playoffs. The leagues leading passer was replaced and wasn’t highly sought after by other teams. Coin it a passing league all you want but 5,000 yards passing and no wins amounts to jack. So yes, NFL teams have to stop the run and force their opponents to pass from down and distance to create sacks and turnovers.

As I've mentioned repeatedly the total amount of yards is a terrible metric to evaluate success. That doesn't change the fact the NFL is a passing league. I agree that teams improve their chances by containing the opponent's running game but it's not as important as you want to make others believe.
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
3,249
Reaction score
345
I don’t think it is coincidental that the winning teams were more effective in stopping the run 6 of 7 games. It’s a passing league because of inflated numbers by the QB of losing teams trying to play catch-up.
By the same token, winning teams will run the ball more to burn clock, so it works both ways. You might look at rushing yards per attempt to see if one team is running the ball more effectively, as opposed to just looking at total rushing yards. Although even that won't tell the whole story.
 

Fat Dogs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
427
Reaction score
28
By the same token, winning teams will run the ball more to burn clock, so it works both ways. You might look at rushing yards per attempt to see if one team is running the ball more effectively, as opposed to just looking at total rushing yards. Although even that won't tell the whole story.


Damn that’s a good point. still, the playoff numbers are pretty convincing. We can call it a passing league but shouldn’t that insinuate the team that passes for the most yards should win more often than they lose? I’ll admit that stopping the run isn’t the most important aspect of the game but it sure helps.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,612
Reaction score
1,326
And while old-school, smashmouth can be fun, it's not really that effective in today's NFL.
I think Tennessee was pretty effective. Had their passing game not been in the bottom 1/3rd they would’ve made a deeper playoff push. But it was the running game that got them that far.
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
3,249
Reaction score
345
We can call it a passing league but shouldn’t that insinuate the team that passes for the most yards should win more often than they lose?
Well, usually they do win, but not all the time. We beat the Bears twice, but Mitch Trubisky outgained Rodgers in both games. In a lot of games, the losing team runs up a lot of passing yards as they try to catch up (as you said) and the defense goes into a soft prevent. Stats don't always tell the story in football.
 

Fat Dogs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
427
Reaction score
28
I think Tennessee was pretty effective. Had their passing game not been in the bottom 1/3rd they would’ve made a deeper playoff push. But it was the running game that got them that far.


Tennessee was very effective but you need a special talent like Henry to power through the middle of a defense. This O is easy to scheme against and that’s why it went away. I think a variation of smash mouth is more effective for today’s Game. Use pre-snap motions to get your backs into space like the Ravens and 49ers do. This 0 uses a lot of pulling line-man and off tackle runs designed to exploit stacked boxes. I’m pretty sure this is where our offense is headed.
 

mradtke66

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
1,190
Reaction score
186
Location
Madison, WI
We can call it a passing league but shouldn’t that insinuate the team that passes for the most yards should win more often than they lose?

Nope. Teams that score more points tend to win games. Paging Dr. Madden...

Joking aside, you can score lots of points without racking up lots of yards. You can also accumulate a lot of yards without scoring points.

It's a passing league because it is more efficient. Consider the worst starter (in terms of efficiency), no. 33, Mitchell Trubisky, averaged 6.1 yards per attempt.

The best running back (in terms of efficiency), Raheem Mostert, average 5.6 yards per carry. However, he did that on only 137 carrier. The best with over 200 carries (303) is Derrick Henry--he averaged 5.1 yards per carry.

In a vacuum, one could argue that it's better for Mitchell Trubisky to throw in a given situation that it would be for Derrick Henry to run.

And that's just about to wash out of the league Trubisky vs. Dragging his team through the playoffs damn near by himself Henry.
 

Fat Dogs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
427
Reaction score
28
Well, usually they do win, but not all the time. We beat the Bears twice, but Mitch Trubisky outgained Rodgers in both games. In a lot of games, the losing team runs up a lot of passing yards as they try to catch up (as you said) and the defense goes into a soft prevent. Stats don't always tell the story in football.


That’s my point. We only call it a passing league because of the amount of passes thrown and not because you have to pass to win. I just looked at the box score of those two Bears games. The packers allowed less yards rushing in both games. Makes me think.
 
Top