100 yard rusher vs 300 yard passer winning percentage - interesting

[Big Blitz]

 

^^^

 

No you don't build a ground n pound O.

 

You just better not neglect your ability to run

Edited September 6, 2022 by Big Blitz

[Mikie2times]

Is this a causation/correlation issue?  Teams that are ahead run the ball more. Is this stat more reflective of that or a type of strategy within the game? This has been talked about for a very long time. I just think it’s more of causation issue nowadays. Good teams pass. That seems pretty clear from an observational standpoint. 

[HamSandwhich]

Forget Josh Allen, run the wildcat with Moss! 

[Buffalo Junction]

What’s the percentage for teams that have both, or a 100 yard rusher with a 250 yard passer? 

[Big Blitz]

1 minute ago, KzooMike said:

Is this a causation/correlation issue?  Teams that are ahead run the ball more. Is this stat more reflective of that or a type of strategy within the game? This has been talked about for a very long time. I just think it’s more of causation issue nowadays. Good teams pass. That seems pretty clear from an observational standpoint. 

 

 

 

Obviously a few variables 

 

But I think you would be hard pressed to find a team with a good running game that doesn't win games - even without an elite QB

 

It just really is a fact.  If you run and stop the run you will win much more then you lose - will it mean SB, probably not.  

 

 

 

As this pertains to us - we all know what needed to improve on offense.  

 

A legitimate running game.

 

Last years struggles in the first 13 games were the inability to keep defenses on their heels with a run game to respect.  

 

I'm excited about Motor and even Moss this year.  Their faith in those 2 confirms they believed the problem was more on the oline and that was and has been addressed.  The offense became lethal the last 7 games not just because Allen went nuts but so did Motor.

 

 

[HardyBoy]

9 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

Is this a causation/correlation issue?  Teams that are ahead run the ball more. Is this stat more reflective of that or a type of strategy within the game? This has been talked about for a very long time. I just think it’s more of causation issue nowadays. Good teams pass. That seems pretty clear from an observational standpoint. 

 

Came in to say this. Need to look at how many of those yards were gained after the team started milking the clock.

 

If anything, that stat might actually show you that 100 yard rushers are likely to lead to losses. Have to think if you're running a four minute offense, you're more than 70% likely to win. 

[MJS]

When you are up, you run the ball to run out the clock. That could inflate your rushing stats.

 

When you are down, you throw the ball more, inflating your passing stats.

[Coach Tuesday]

17 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

Is this a causation/correlation issue?  Teams that are ahead run the ball more. Is this stat more reflective of that or a type of strategy within the game? This has been talked about for a very long time. I just think it’s more of causation issue nowadays. Good teams pass. That seems pretty clear from an observational standpoint. 

This is why a metric like DVOA is more useful than yardage - it’s impossible to tell what’s driving that data without understanding the context (down, distance, strength of opponent and game situation).

Also those are all pretty good winning correlations.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Coach Tuesday

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

I’ve only been saying that for decades 

 

BALANCE 

Edited September 6, 2022 by SlimShady'sSpaceForce

[SinceThe70s]

@Big Blitz Are you trying to draw out 300 yard passing game guy?  lol

 

I actually ran some numbers in a thread a few years ago that pretty much refuted the importance of the 300 yard game - wish I could find it. There was far more correlation between rushing yards and winning than passing yards and winning. But to @KzooMike's point not sure how to determine causation. 

 

Anyway, I completely agree with you - very difficult to win it all with a one dimensional offense.

[Big Blitz]

17 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said:

@Big Blitz Are you trying to draw out 300 yard passing game guy?  lol

 

I actually ran some numbers in a thread a few years ago that pretty much refuted the importance of the 300 yard game - wish I could find it. There was far more correlation between rushing yards and winning than passing yards and winning. But to @KzooMike's point not sure how to determine causation. 

 

Anyway, I completely agree with you - very difficult to win it all with a one dimensional offense.

 

 

Exactly 

 

Just came across a few comments on the internets about our "committee" backfield and "who cares more carries for them means less throws for Allen" stuff.  

 

That was the kind of thinking I felt we had going in to the opener vs Pittsburgh last year and I think Daboll agreed.  

 

It's going to be tough to run on the Rams - obviously depending on how Josh is slinging it then by all means sling it - but I hope they stick with our run game and not bail on it by the 3rd series.   

 

 

I'm just expecting a big year from Motor and the new dimension of Cook to take this O to another level.  

Edited September 6, 2022 by Big Blitz

[Shaw66]

It's always been understood that when you run for over 100 yards, there's a good chance you will win.   It's hard to do all the time.   It's very, very difficult.  You've got to have a really special back and a good line.  When you commit resources to being able to do it consistently, you neglect the passing attack.  Then you're one dimensional; that's what we see with the Ravens.  

 

The thing about teams that can threaten to pass for 300 yards is that threat makes it easier to run.  So, the teams that feature the pass become naturally balanced, because running can be effective without being great.  So, not only does the team that puts up 300 yard passing games win a fair amount, but they also run over 100 often, too.  

[Allen2D̶i̶g̶g̶s̶TBD]

Teams that throw Gatorade on their coach win 100% of the time

[Big Blitz]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It's always been understood that when you run for over 100 yards, there's a good chance you will win.   It's hard to do all the time.   It's very, very difficult.  You've got to have a really special back and a good line.  When you commit resources to being able to do it consistently, you neglect the passing attack.  Then you're one dimensional; that's what we see with the Ravens.  

 

The thing about teams that can threaten to pass for 300 yards is that threat makes it easier to run.  So, the teams that feature the pass become naturally balanced, because running can be effective without being great.  So, not only does the team that puts up 300 yard passing games win a fair amount, but they also run over 100 often, too.  

 

 

All true which is what made our first 13 games last year so baffling.  Plus, the defense was playing that 2 deep shell begging us to run.   

 

So maybe it was Daboll.  Maybe it was the oline.  Maybe it took 13 games to figure this out or all of it.  

[CEN-CAL17]

I think the biggest difference this year is teams will focus more on our run game or at least worry more about our backfield…. Cook is gonna be a headache to deal with and I expect Singletary to produce more.

[Ya Digg?]

Just a reminder that the Bills led the league in rushing both years Rex was here

[1ManRaid]

Last I checked Josh had like a 90% win rate in 300 passing yard games.  He's not putting up garbage time stats.

[SinceThe70s]

19 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It's always been understood that when you run for over 100 yards, there's a good chance you will win.   It's hard to do all the time.   It's very, very difficult.  You've got to have a really special back and a good line.  When you commit resources to being able to do it consistently, you neglect the passing attack.  Then you're one dimensional; that's what we see with the Ravens.  

 

The thing about teams that can threaten to pass for 300 yards is that threat makes it easier to run.  So, the teams that feature the pass become naturally balanced, because running can be effective without being great.  So, not only does the team that puts up 300 yard passing games win a fair amount, but they also run over 100 often, too.  

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting we commit to the run over the pass - just that having an effective running game is still important. I felt like last year if we needed a yard or two on the ground the only guy I had faith in to get it was Josh. I'd feel better if we had a strong enough running game to rely on our backs over Josh in more situations.

[Rampage]

If you run the ball successfully you control the time of possession. The other team has less time to score whereas you have more time to score. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Rampage

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, Big Blitz said:

 

^^^

 

No you don't build a ground n pound O.

 

You just better not neglect your ability to run

 

I think this is an example of "correlation is not causation"

 

Teams that are leading on the scoreboard, tend to run the ball if they can to eat clock

Teams that are behind on the scoreboard, tend to sling it to try to score more points more quickly