This might kill Shep...
-
I wonder what DEN's ratio is?
Fantasy League Updates Weak SexStarted by Zombo, Today, 09:10 AM @slowburn said:okay, bazooka, you win. r u fucking happy now? u got the last word. btw, your avatar and board name really grate my nerves for some reason.. http://thumbpress.com/best-of-surprised-koala-bear-meme-25-pics/ -
I constantly hear how the NFL is a passing league.
However, the top 10 teams in passing percentage this year are a combined 18-38, with only Miami being over .500.
I understand that losing teams need to pass more and this is a pure misapplication of stats, but it's also telling.
The more successful teams are, once again, near the middle of the run/pass ratio list, passing between 50-58% of the time.
The Browns are 5th on the list, passing over 65% of the time.
Balance is key.
Balance is key.
Going to disagree here TC... Balance is a deceitful stat at best...
Good teams play with the lead more.
Bad teams play from behind more.
Teams playing from behind pass more.
Teams with leads run more.
Especially late in games, i.e., 4Q.
The game circumstances dictate the play calling.
The play calling produces the balance stat.
Seems to me that good (winning) teams end up being balanced.
If first half stats are available, I'd bet that the good teams are normally imbalanced.
At minimum it's a "chicken and egg" situation, i.e., balance is an effect not a cause.
And then there's your data...
58% is sure as hell not balanced.
At 58% a team is running 42 times out of 100 plays and passing 58 times.
You really want to claim that nearly half again as many passes as runs is "balanced"?
Also worth noting that apparently no team runs more than 50% of the time...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
I wonder what DEN's ratio is?
I wonder what DEN's ratio is?
180/ 243 passing
180 rushing
Completions are 50 - 50 with runs...
Attempts are 57.4% of plays.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Balance is key.
Going to disagree here TC... Balance is a deceitful stat at best...
Good teams play with the lead more.
Bad teams play from behind more.
Teams playing from behind pass more.
Teams with leads run more.
Especially late in games, i.e., 4Q.
The game circumstances dictate the play calling.
The play calling produces the balance stat.
Seems to me that good (winning) teams end up being balanced.
If first half stats are available, I'd bet that the good teams are normally imbalanced.
At minimum it's a "chicken and egg" situation, i.e., balance is an effect not a cause.
And then there's your data...
58% is sure as hell not balanced.
At 58% a team is running 42 times out of 100 plays and passing 58 times.
You really want to claim that nearly half again as many passes as runs is "balanced"?
Also worth noting that apparently no team runs more than 50% of the time...
Compared to Atlanta's near 70% passing percentage, and given that the league wide mathematical average of passing plays this season is right around 57%...yes, I would say 58% is quite balanced.Going to disagree here TC... Balance is a deceitful stat at best...
Good teams play with the lead more.
Bad teams play from behind more.
Teams playing from behind pass more.
Teams with leads run more.
Especially late in games, i.e., 4Q.
The game circumstances dictate the play calling.
The play calling produces the balance stat.
Seems to me that good (winning) teams end up being balanced.
If first half stats are available, I'd bet that the good teams are normally imbalanced.
At minimum it's a "chicken and egg" situation, i.e., balance is an effect not a cause.
And then there's your data...
58% is sure as hell not balanced.
At 58% a team is running 42 times out of 100 plays and passing 58 times.
You really want to claim that nearly half again as many passes as runs is "balanced"?
Also worth noting that apparently no team runs more than 50% of the time...
Based on your reasoning, why wouldn't the teams with the highest run percentages then have the best records, since running clearly is indicative of success?
Also, you're mistaken. There are five teams this season that have ran more than 50% of the time and another three teams that run very close to 50% (around 49%).
Those five teams running over 50% of the time? Carolina, Philadelphia, Seattle, San Fran and Buffalo.
Their combined record is 16-15.
Balance is key.
That's not saying that each game you run the ball 50 percent of the time and throw 50 percent of the time. Situations dictate your playcalling. But you damn well have to be able to run the ball when you need to just as you have to be able to pass when you need to, or else you just aren't going to find sustained success.
If you excel at passing but can't run for shit, I can run nickel all day. If you can't pass but you're a fantastic run team, we can put an extra LB on the field, stack the box and man lock the outside.
Balance is key.
Just like I posted last month:
"In 2010, the year the Packers won the Super Bowl, they finished 14th in passing percentage, throwing the ball 57% of the time. Their opponent, Pittsburgh, threw the ball 52% of the time.
Peyton Manning's Super Bowl run in 2006 was at the helm of the 14th ranked team in passing percentage, same as Rodgers. The Colts threw the ball 55% of the time that season. His second Super Bowl run (the one they lost), had the Colts finish 1st in passing but I'll get to that in a bit.
In their 2007 Super Bowl season, New England also finished 14th in passing percentage, passing the ball 55% of the time. In their 2011 Super Bowl run the Patriots again finished 14th in passing percentage.
Three of your four examples are three of my best examples.
Here's a run down of each Super Bowl teams passing percentage for the past 5 years:
(20) Baltimore 55% - (30) San Fran 48%
(9) NY Giants 60% - (14) New England 58%
(14) Green Bay 57% - (28) Pittsburgh 52%
(24) New Orleans 55%- (1) Indianapolis 61%
(23) Pittsburgh 54%- (1) Arizona 63%
The winning teams (on the left) were all ranked closer to the median than their opponents, the only exception being New England. In both the 2007 and 2011 seasons (both Super Bowl years), the Patriots finished 14th in passing percentage but still lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl.
Yes, passing is crucial. Having a good quarterback is a given, But balance leads to the Lombardi more than anything. "
-
what's with the analytics all of sudden? I prefer the short, profanity laced, fuck-off-and-die posts.
Don't you feel well TCPO?
-
Balance is key.
Going to disagree here TC... Balance is a deceitful stat at best...
Good teams play with the lead more.
Bad teams play from behind more.
Teams playing from behind pass more.
Teams with leads run more.
Especially late in games, i.e., 4Q.
The game circumstances dictate the play calling.
The play calling produces the balance stat.
Seems to me that good (winning) teams end up being balanced.
If first half stats are available, I'd bet that the good teams are normally imbalanced.
At minimum it's a "chicken and egg" situation, i.e., balance is an effect not a cause.
And then there's your data...
58% is sure as hell not balanced.
At 58% a team is running 42 times out of 100 plays and passing 58 times.
You really want to claim that nearly half again as many passes as runs is "balanced"?
Also worth noting that apparently no team runs more than 50% of the time...
Going to disagree here TC... Balance is a deceitful stat at best...
Good teams play with the lead more.
Bad teams play from behind more.
Teams playing from behind pass more.
Teams with leads run more.
Especially late in games, i.e., 4Q.
The game circumstances dictate the play calling.
The play calling produces the balance stat.
Seems to me that good (winning) teams end up being balanced.
If first half stats are available, I'd bet that the good teams are normally imbalanced.
At minimum it's a "chicken and egg" situation, i.e., balance is an effect not a cause.
And then there's your data...
58% is sure as hell not balanced.
At 58% a team is running 42 times out of 100 plays and passing 58 times.
You really want to claim that nearly half again as many passes as runs is "balanced"?
Also worth noting that apparently no team runs more than 50% of the time...
You can make a valid argument for either way. But I agree with your logic. I think good teams end up being balanced because they way the game is played. Bad teams must pass all the time when behind. Its not surprising that teams that have drastically more passing plays are not the better teams.
-
what's with the analytics all of sudden? I prefer the short, profanity laced, fuck-off-and-die posts.
Don't you feel well TCPO?
what's with the analytics all of sudden? I prefer the short, profanity laced, fuck-off-and-die posts.
Don't you feel well TCPO?
I post to the level of my peers.
When there's actual conversation, I contribute. When there's nothing but stupid ideas sharted out of everyone's pussies, I contribute to that.
-
There is only 1 stat that matters. Win-Loss
It doesn't matter how you win...........only IF you win.
Teams win with punt returns, Int returns.... turnovers.......... Hall-of-Fame QB play, good running games. Guys who catch the ball
Teams lose by dropping passes, stupid penallty's, turnovers, rookie QB playing, Weeden playing, bad coaching, stupid play calling.
Just look at the NE vs NO game. 2 all time QB's going at it, and the coaches lost and won the game. Why NO didn't let Breese try to win the game on 3rd down is insane. And Brady got 3 tries to win it and he DID win it.
-
It's a horrible stat. The great teams pass to take leads and then run to hold them. "Analytics" back it up. Look at the run/pass ratio of winning teams in the first half.
Better to look at passer rating. Over the past decade, the top 10 or 12 PR teams are basically the playoff teams. It's an amazing correlation. And while there are winning teams that match your description (mostly Seattle and SF), there aren't many.
-
I wonder what DEN's ratio is?
I wonder what DEN's ratio is?
There's always one anomaly.
-
It's anything but an anomaly. It's not called a quarterback league or passing league for nothin'. Year after year after year, the teams with passers at the top of the ratings are the one in the playoffs. Great runners and running teams? Not so much.
Remember: The 10 Super Bowl teams before last year averaged 23rd in rushing. Four were 30th or lower. Three were 32nd. Dead solid last. Can you imagine that for the worst passing team? The four lowest rated passers in the NFL have been benched already, the ones above that aren't going anywhere.
The serious contenders are at the top. Denver and New Orleans probably get the nod for predicted Super Bowl right now... #1 and #2 in passing yards.
Running the ball isn't the second most important factor either. That's defense, most importantly pass defense.
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