Why the running game still matters
-
I keep hearing people saying the NFL is now a "Passing" League and that the run isn't important anymore.
I keep countering that Rushing still comprises on average 40% - 50% of a Teams plays, and now here's something to back that up:
http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/post/_/id/75949/why-the-running-game-still-matters
Sometimes the most off-the-cuff statements take a person to interesting places.
So when Cleveland Browns defensive coordinator Ray Horton stated something yesterday, it seemed wise to check it out.
Horton is admittedly a stats maven; he says he spends a lot of time with numbers. But when he talked about defending the running game and discussed a team having a back with 20 carries in a game, he said something interesting.
“If you do that you win the game usually because if you can get your runner 20 plus per carries a game, usually you’re winning and you’re controlling the clock,” he said.
Which sounds like it contradicts conventional wisdom that the NFL is now a passing league and runners and running backs are de-emphasized.
Except Horton is right. And the numbers back him up.
In the past five seasons (including through eight weeks this season), when a team has a back that runs 20 times in a game, it wins 71 percent of the time (473-190-2).
This season, a player has rushed 20 or more times in a game 58 times. His team won 42 of those games, or 72.4 percent of the time.
Seven of those losses came from players on bad teams -- Doug Martin has 20 carries in four Tampa Bay games, and Arian Foster has three for Houston. Not even a good back can overcome a bad team. But take away those seven and the won-lost percentage jumps to 82 percent.
Last season, though, Foster had 10 games with 20 carries, and Houston won all 10.
All teams that had a back that ran the ball 20 times in a game last season went 118-36-2 in 2012. They won 76 percent of the time, or three in four games, or 12 in a 16-game season.
Results like that are meaningful, but they’re not unusual.
In 2011, the record was 109-41 (72.6 percent).
In 2010, it was 101-44 (69.6 percent).
And in 2009, it was 103-50 (67.3 percent).
Go back to the past, choose a random season.
In 1991, teams with a guy with 20-plus carries went 90-29 (75.6 percent). That was the heyday of Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders, yet the won-lost percentage is nearly the same as 2011, when the NFL has become a “passing league.”
In 1974, it was 74-20 (78.7 percent)
And in 1963, the heyday of the great Jim Brown and Jim Taylor, teams went 37-10 (78.8 percent).
Consider the playoffs. In the past five seasons, teams with a back that ran 20 or more times in a game went 20-8 (71.4 percent). In the last 10, it was 42-20 (67.8 percent).
It means something.
Consider the Super Bowl. Teams that had a back with 20 or more carries have gone 22-4, meaning they win 84.6 percent of the time.
And since 1960, the won-lost record of teams that have a 20-carry guy is 3,031 wins, 1,146 losses and 24 ties. That would mean winning 72.4 percent of the time.
Conclusion? Thank you Mr. Horton.
What the bottom-line numbers do not show is why teams are running the ball. Are they doing it because they're ahead, which Horton referred to? Or because it's their game plan? Browns GM Mike Lombardi has talked in the past about the key number being a combined 50 rushing attempts and completions. What's clear is that running the ball matters, and it especially matters in the biggest of games, the Super Bowl.
How these teams got to these carries might be meaningful. But numbers that are consistent over decades mean Horton is right and that running the ball, and committing to the run, is related to winning.
Even in the “passing league” era, teams that run the ball win games. -
All those stats tell us is that there is a correlation between winning and running, not the causality. Fortunately, though, Mr Horton has explained that for us - if you're running the ball 20 times it's because you want to take time off the clock when you're winning a game. So I'd counter that winning causes running, not the other way around.
-
Correct: You have to dig deeper. Lombardi and Banner are all into analytics (also known as "facts") and this is how teams win (for the most part): Pass aggressively, take a first-half lead, attack the other team with multiple pass rushers, extend lead... and then run with your UDFA or 3rd round pick or whatever.
Yes, of course it's better to be able to run the ball. No, being spectacular at it doesn't add up to much. Having a great back gain 1,700 yards requires a lot of carries which reduces your passes which means your quarterback isn't among the best... which we all know means you don't win anything. Adrian Peterson has been to the same number of Super Bowls as Fred Taylor and Steven Jackson etc. Workhorse superstar backs get to golf on Super Bowl Sunday. HOF QBs do not.
Running the ball sets up play-action. Running the ball converts 3rd and 2. Running the ball runs the clock when you have a lead. But yes, of course it's a passing league. MOST teams that run a lot do so because they lack a great QB, not because they really expect to party like it's 1979.
-
I know this contradicts the stats in the article/Horton presser, but I think - Don't tell me how much you run it, tell me what your running game accomplishes.Can your running game keep a defense honest?Chud, IMO and with what he's got to work with, does a good job of "pitching backwards" whereas Shurmur was run/run/3rd and 7 and Weeden sacked or worse, which isn't balance, it's just ensuring most rookie QBs fail (not defending Weeden, just saying) and the defense is on the field for 40 minutes a game.Can you pick up first downs running?The Browns are doing better with this post TR, even in the losses. Two games with Chud + TR isn't a fair sample, but "it is what it is." We still need to do a better job keeping drives going, for the sake of field position and defense, too. Can you run to pick up a 3rd and 2, instead of it being an automatic passing down?Then, the main correlation vs. causality, can you run to run out the clock?Versus Cincy, McGahee+Ogby+Rainey = 26 carriesVs Buffalo, McGahee = 26 carriesThe YPC was still sucky, but we were leading (let alone not down by 2-3 possessions) and it was enough to get the job done.On the first downs...With TR - 3 1st downs by run (33 total 1st downs) 5/29 3rd down conv. (17.2%)Post TR - 31 (113) 37/94 (39.4%)By QBWeeden (Buffalo included) - 23 (92) 21/78 (26.9%)Hoyer/JC - 12 (54) 18/45 (40%)
-
You have to make first downs and play solid defense. That is the key. Whether it's by running for 4 on 1st, or throwing on 1st to set up 3rd & short... it just doesn't matter how you do it, the team that makes the most first downs, and gets off the field on D, is the team that controls the clock, and ultimately wins... As somebody said, 20 carries to win percentage is simply a correlation, does not prove that 20 carries wins football games...
-
This is why I loved our running game when we had Hillis and Vickers. Unfortunately what drove me crazy is that we couldn't field a decent passing attack to take advantage of the secondary having to be brought up. I said back then that I'd rather build a running game like what we had rather than a single back like Peterson trying to break an 80 yder on every carry. I still feel that way but Peterson my god has become one of the best runners i've ever seen now. How he's better now that he has a major ACL surgery under his belt is beyond me. That dude still dances in the pocket but when he see's aint' nothin there he puts his helmet straight the fuck down and knocks dude's flat. He's the best of both worlds now. We won't see that for some time.
-
I still think if you have a downhill running game that hurts, avg's 3 yds a carry....you get to 3rd manageable. Then guys like Cameron really shine, and if they swallow him up you have your 3rd down back in there to dump off to and he's only got to get 3 to 4 yds for the 1st. That's how you win. Teams bring people up then you have a qb/wr combo that can try for the homerun.
-
All those stats tell us is that there is a correlation between winning and running, not the causality. Fortunately, though, Mr Horton has explained that for us - if you're running the ball 20 times it's because you want to take time off the clock when you're winning a game. So I'd counter that winning causes running, not the other way around.
All those stats tell us is that there is a correlation between winning and running, not the causality. Fortunately, though, Mr Horton has explained that for us - if you're running the ball 20 times it's because you want to take time off the clock when you're winning a game. So I'd counter that winning causes running, not the other way around.
Yup... same convo we had here a couple weeks ago. Had Ray chose to use "leading" rather than "winning", then there would be no discussion.
Still waiting to see percentages while the lead is being established.
-
Good points both ways.
One way I look at it is a Rushing attack is more punishing (physically) than a Passing attack.
Your OL should be moving the DL out of the way, and your RB is bruising up the LB's & Secondary and wearing them down.
This is one of the big factors an effective running game gives you, it helps tire out the opponents Defense.
Yes, getting into manageable down and distance, Clock management, setting up other plays, and keeping the opponents Defense honest are all factors and good points as well.
While Rushing doesn't generally stack up the yards like Passing, the League average among Teams is still 40%-50% of plays being run plays - that's a huge chunk.
For example, in 2011 Teams averaged about 61 offensives plays a game ====> 27 Rush & 34 Pass
Think about that for a bit, an average of 34 Pass Att per game per Team for the entire Season.
-
I know we had this conversation recently... and the winningest teams tend to pass between 60 and 70% of the time. First half stats were the focus of whatever the article was, and it was supportive of Lombardi's statements about "how teams win today."
There are obviously some outliers who are pulling it off. Seattle, KC, and SF come to mind. We'll have to see how that plays out. I find all three interesting, partially because all of their QBs can play, too. All three are very mobile, too.
But running to win is getting pretty tough because you play too many games against teams that can hang 40 on even really good defenses. You can't run your way out of a 14-0 deficit. Part of the problem is the longer the drive, the greater the peril, as Aikman (obviously one of my faves) put it. The more plays, the more chances for holding calls or false starts that put you behind the chains... and that means you have to have a quarterback who can get you out of 3rd and 13 a couple times on that drive.
Again, none of those three teams has a bad quarterback. In fact, Wilson and Kaep can be great ones. But we really haven't seen a run-based team with a game manager QB win a Super Bowl in quite some time. It's been owned by Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and so on.
If you wanna talk about an interesting trend, it's teams struggling when they lack a midrange game. Losing Boldin and Pitta (the latter to injury) has really crippled the Ravens. It takes time to go deep and they haven't been able to protect Flacco (hence the Monroe trade). That's made Rice look really bad.
-
I know we had this conversation recently... and the winningest teams tend to pass between 60 and 70% of the time. First half stats were the focus of whatever the article was, and it was supportive of Lombardi's statements about "how teams win today."
There are obviously some outliers who are pulling it off. Seattle, KC, and SF come to mind. We'll have to see how that plays out. I find all three interesting, partially because all of their QBs can play, too. All three are very mobile, too.
But running to win is getting pretty tough because you play too many games against teams that can hang 40 on even really good defenses. You can't run your way out of a 14-0 deficit. Part of the problem is the longer the drive, the greater the peril, as Aikman (obviously one of my faves) put it. The more plays, the more chances for holding calls or false starts that put you behind the chains... and that means you have to have a quarterback who can get you out of 3rd and 13 a couple times on that drive.
Again, none of those three teams has a bad quarterback. In fact, Wilson and Kaep can be great ones. But we really haven't seen a run-based team with a game manager QB win a Super Bowl in quite some time. It's been owned by Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and so on.
If you wanna talk about an interesting trend, it's teams struggling when they lack a midrange game. Losing Boldin and Pitta (the latter to injury) has really crippled the Ravens. It takes time to go deep and they haven't been able to protect Flacco (hence the Monroe trade). That's made Rice look really bad.
If you wanna talk about an interesting trend, it's teams struggling when they lack a midrange game. Losing Boldin and Pitta (the latter to injury) has really crippled the Ravens. It takes time to go deep and they haven't been able to protect Flacco (hence the Monroe trade). That's made Rice look really bad.
exactly. If our edges can't get home on Sunday two things are going to happen. A) the browns are going to lose cause Flacco will torch them and
I will be here on monday and I will rant like a bastard on Kruger. Why Kruger? Cause his pass rushing has sucked this year. Last time they played the Ravens he was able to bullrush Oher back in Flacco's lap the whole game which means he's one of the best bullrushers in the game. For him not to be able to capitalize on that ability with even a moderately skilled outside/inside technique is infuriating. When he goes outside he's completely upright, doesn't dig in at all. The tackle can basically take a quick nap on him and push him out wide. I've been seeing this the whole season and it's been driving me crazy. We paid the guy 8m to "get home". Mingo and Sheard haven't been doing a whole heck of alot better either but Mingo's a noob and Sheard has been hurt. We need Groves this weekend to step up and be the guy that can sub in and there's no relent on the pressure. -
Kruger's been a bit disappointing, agreed. Good thing Mingo has NOT disappointed!
Mingo hasn't exactly disappointed, certainly not in the pass rush, but his run defense obviously needs work. But that was a known quantity. It was cringy to watch him get sealed inside by a TE's where a huge run broke against us. If the secondary is coming up to fill the middle the edges simply cannot allow themselves to get pinched, all the long runs this season of 10 yds or more I beleive have broken to his side when he was on the field. Almost 100% sure about that. I know for a fact that the couple runs we've lost this year that broke over 30 were all on him.
-
I know we had this conversation recently... and the winningest teams tend to pass between 60 and 70% of the time. First half stats were the focus of whatever the article was, and it was supportive of Lombardi's statements about "how teams win today."
There are obviously some outliers who are pulling it off. Seattle, KC, and SF come to mind. We'll have to see how that plays out. I find all three interesting, partially because all of their QBs can play, too. All three are very mobile, too.
But running to win is getting pretty tough because you play too many games against teams that can hang 40 on even really good defenses. You can't run your way out of a 14-0 deficit. Part of the problem is the longer the drive, the greater the peril, as Aikman (obviously one of my faves) put it. The more plays, the more chances for holding calls or false starts that put you behind the chains... and that means you have to have a quarterback who can get you out of 3rd and 13 a couple times on that drive.
Again, none of those three teams has a bad quarterback. In fact, Wilson and Kaep can be great ones. But we really haven't seen a run-based team with a game manager QB win a Super Bowl in quite some time. It's been owned by Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and so on.
If you wanna talk about an interesting trend, it's teams struggling when they lack a midrange game. Losing Boldin and Pitta (the latter to injury) has really crippled the Ravens. It takes time to go deep and they haven't been able to protect Flacco (hence the Monroe trade). That's made Rice look really bad.
There are obviously some outliers who are pulling it off. Seattle, KC, and SF come to mind. We'll have to see how that plays out. I find all three interesting, partially because all of their QBs can play, too. All three are very mobile, too.
Does raise another factoid we have not addressed...
More than merely mobile... in Wilson, Smith and Kaepernick you have three of the best running QB's in the league. They contribute to their teams run stats through designed runs and run options... and those contributions are fairly included as runs. However, they also pad their teams' running stats through their scrambles for positive yards when passes were called and these go down as runs.
Kruger's been a bit disappointing, agreed. Good thing Mingo has NOT disappointed!
Mingo hasn't exactly disappointed, certainly not in the pass rush, but his run defense obviously needs work.
Player Tot Solo Assist Sck TFL F Int PD
Barkevious Mingo 20 15 5 4.0 1 0 0 1
Paul Kruger 21 10 11 2.5 3 0 0 2
Not a great deal of difference there for one guy dissappointing and another delighting... just saying...
Could not find individual stats for QB Hurries and Knockdowns, but believe Kruger is out performing there as well.
(Did you know we are 2nd in the league in QB Hits?)
Half a season and 4 sacks is not exactly a world class debut. Bark needs time and 20-30 pounds.
Kruger is being paid as much for veteran leadership as he is on-field production.
-
There are obviously some outliers who are pulling it off. Seattle, KC, and SF come to mind. We'll have to see how that plays out. I find all three interesting, partially because all of their QBs can play, too. All three are very mobile, too.
Does raise another factoid we have not addressed...
More than merely mobile... in Wilson, Smith and Kaepernick you have three of the best running QB's in the league. They contribute to their teams run stats through designed runs and run options... and those contributions are fairly included as runs. However, they also pad their teams' running stats through their scrambles for positive yards when passes were called and these go down as runs.
Kruger's been a bit disappointing, agreed. Good thing Mingo has NOT disappointed!
Mingo hasn't exactly disappointed, certainly not in the pass rush, but his run defense obviously needs work.
Player Tot Solo Assist Sck TFL F Int PD
Barkevious Mingo 20 15 5 4.0 1 0 0 1
Paul Kruger 21 10 11 2.5 3 0 0 2
Not a great deal of difference there for one guy dissappointing and another delighting... just saying...
Could not find individual stats for QB Hurries and Knockdowns, but believe Kruger is out performing there as well.
(Did you know we are 2nd in the league in QB Hits?)
Half a season and 4 sacks is not exactly a world class debut. Bark needs time and 20-30 pounds.
Kruger is being paid as much for veteran leadership as he is on-field production.
Does raise another factoid we have not addressed...
More than merely mobile... in Wilson, Smith and Kaepernick you have three of the best running QB's in the league. They contribute to their teams run stats through designed runs and run options... and those contributions are fairly included as runs. However, they also pad their teams' running stats through their scrambles for positive yards when passes were called and these go down as runs.
Player Tot Solo Assist Sck TFL F Int PD
Barkevious Mingo 20 15 5 4.0 1 0 0 1
Paul Kruger 21 10 11 2.5 3 0 0 2
Not a great deal of difference there for one guy dissappointing and another delighting... just saying...
Could not find individual stats for QB Hurries and Knockdowns, but believe Kruger is out performing there as well.
(Did you know we are 2nd in the league in QB Hits?)
Half a season and 4 sacks is not exactly a world class debut. Bark needs time and 20-30 pounds.
Kruger is being paid as much for veteran leadership as he is on-field production.
Kruger has been coming on in recent weeks.He will blow up his old team today,
Zombo
-
i think a solid running game is very important. doesn't meant you need a big name guy, a first, second or even third round guy. someone who gets you 3+ yds per carry, but more importantly can break away for runs for 40-50 yards for a score. it also brings up the defense which lends to a more productive passing game.
the REAL most undeniable way to win in the NFL is to dominate the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball. bottom line.
-
There are obviously some outliers who are pulling it off. Seattle, KC, and SF come to mind. We'll have to see how that plays out. I find all three interesting, partially because all of their QBs can play, too. All three are very mobile, too.
Does raise another factoid we have not addressed...
More than merely mobile... in Wilson, Smith and Kaepernick you have three of the best running QB's in the league. They contribute to their teams run stats through designed runs and run options... and those contributions are fairly included as runs. However, they also pad their teams' running stats through their scrambles for positive yards when passes were called and these go down as runs.
Kruger's been a bit disappointing, agreed. Good thing Mingo has NOT disappointed!
Mingo hasn't exactly disappointed, certainly not in the pass rush, but his run defense obviously needs work.
Player Tot Solo Assist Sck TFL F Int PD
Barkevious Mingo 20 15 5 4.0 1 0 0 1
Paul Kruger 21 10 11 2.5 3 0 0 2
Not a great deal of difference there for one guy dissappointing and another delighting... just saying...
Could not find individual stats for QB Hurries and Knockdowns, but believe Kruger is out performing there as well.
(Did you know we are 2nd in the league in QB Hits?)
Half a season and 4 sacks is not exactly a world class debut. Bark needs time and 20-30 pounds.
Kruger is being paid as much for veteran leadership as he is on-field production.
Dude, just wanna say... you're good.
Does raise another factoid we have not addressed...
More than merely mobile... in Wilson, Smith and Kaepernick you have three of the best running QB's in the league. They contribute to their teams run stats through designed runs and run options... and those contributions are fairly included as runs. However, they also pad their teams' running stats through their scrambles for positive yards when passes were called and these go down as runs.
Player Tot Solo Assist Sck TFL F Int PD
Barkevious Mingo 20 15 5 4.0 1 0 0 1
Paul Kruger 21 10 11 2.5 3 0 0 2
Not a great deal of difference there for one guy dissappointing and another delighting... just saying...
Could not find individual stats for QB Hurries and Knockdowns, but believe Kruger is out performing there as well.
(Did you know we are 2nd in the league in QB Hits?)
Half a season and 4 sacks is not exactly a world class debut. Bark needs time and 20-30 pounds.
Kruger is being paid as much for veteran leadership as he is on-field production.
-
i think a solid running game is very important. doesn't meant you need a big name guy, a first, second or even third round guy. someone who gets you 3+ yds per carry, but more importantly can break away for runs for 40-50 yards for a score. it also brings up the defense which lends to a more productive passing game.
the REAL most undeniable way to win in the NFL is to dominate the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball. bottom line.
Except that UDFAs look good in front of Manning or Rodgers. And the Browns "horrible" line for Frye became awesome for DA. Same for this line in front of anybody who isn't Weeden. Had their best day (by PFF) of the year last week.
QB affects line more than the other way around. My mother plays left tackle for the Packers now.
i think a solid running game is very important. doesn't meant you need a big name guy, a first, second or even third round guy. someone who gets you 3+ yds per carry, but more importantly can break away for runs for 40-50 yards for a score. it also brings up the defense which lends to a more productive passing game.
the REAL most undeniable way to win in the NFL is to dominate the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball. bottom line.
-
yes you need a good QB. but without the line dominating the defensive pass rush and giving him some time to throw the ball or the line opening up holes for a running back, you ain't going to score which means you ain't going to win.
and if your defense just lets RBs walk through the first tier of defense which will bring up more defenders to try and prevent that which leave their bigger taller faster WRs to burn you for big plays you ain't going to win either.
thank you for agreeing with me.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login