todd Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 http://www.slate.com/id/2106074/ 21925[/snapback] I don't agree with that article at all. The running game and passing game are so intertwined, it's hard to separate them. The guy pulls out a few stats to make himself feel better, but stats don't tell the whole story. Questions: He looks at yards per catch. To me, yards per catch is directly related to a strong running game because if you have a strong running game, the defense can't drop as many guys into coverage. Typically, I think that teams that force a defence to stack the line will fare better in the yards per catch area. Not only that, he's only statistically looking at yards per catch and yards per carry. Those are such small parts of the overall picture, it leaves his arguments open to question. Super Bowl winners over the past 10 years or so with "star" running backs: 1. St. Louis 2. Denver 3. Dallas 4. Baltimore Just to name a few. I don't think the guy has his head on straight.
dave mcbride Posted September 8, 2004 Author Posted September 8, 2004 I don't agree with that article at all. The running game and passing game are so intertwined, it's hard to separate them. The guy pulls out a few stats to make himself feel better, but stats don't tell the whole story. Questions: He looks at yards per catch. To me, yards per catch is directly related to a strong running game because if you have a strong running game, the defense can't drop as many guys into coverage. Typically, I think that teams that force a defence to stack the line will fare better in the yards per catch area. Not only that, he's only statistically looking at yards per catch and yards per carry. Those are such small parts of the overall picture, it leaves his arguments open to question. Super Bowl winners over the past 10 years or so with "star" running backs: 1. St. Louis 2. Denver 3. Dallas 4. Baltimore Just to name a few. I don't think the guy has his head on straight. 21993[/snapback] He doesn't use yards per catch as a statistic - he uses yards per passing attempt, which is far different (and actually quite a good indicator of a team's fortunes).
Crows57 Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 I don't agree with that article at all. The running game and passing game are so intertwined, it's hard to separate them. Questions: He looks at yards per catch. 21993[/snapback] Actually it was net yards per attempt. I don't think it changes your point, but there's a big difference. I agree that the run and pass are intertwined, but I don't think that the author was trying to say that they weren't. I believe the point was the difference between a "top" running back and a "marginal" RB are minimal and that it's more critical to be able to pass effectively than run effectively.
Recommended Posts