100 yard rusher vs 300 yard passer winning percentage - interesting

[Matt_In_NH]

What I believe is important is not “balance” but doing enough of both passing and running effectively that the defense must prepare for and defend both.   But passing plays should far outweigh rushing plays.  One  thing we probably won’t see this year under Dorsey is 9 rushing plays from rbs and 18 straight passes and that is a good thing.   

[Scott7975]

6 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

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

 

 

 

Not in all cases.  Think of teams like the Titans, Ravens, Pats.  They were more run heavy teams with good records.

[billybob71]

I know you need balance on O but after all the boring QBs and limited offenses we have had to watch the past 20 plus, as a fan i wanna see the ball in Josh's hands as much as possible, just so fun to watch. And after sitting through alot of brutal games ( most of us prob haven't missed a game in years) we deserve to have one of the most exciting players in all of sports.  

[HiMark]

If you have a big lead, and you run out the clock, you will win 100% of those games.

So how do you get those big leads?

[Matt_In_NH]

6 minutes ago, HiMark said:

If you have a big lead, and you run out the clock, you will win 100% of those games.

So how do you get those big leads?

And do you take out your starting RB with the big lead?

[Billy Claude]

I thought Bill Walsh settled this argument in the 1980's.   

 

This is statistics so there are always exceptions.  It's like using the 90 year old pack a day smoker to say that smoking isn't unhealthy.  So pointing out exceptions is not a valid argument by itself -- you need to look at reasonably large numbers.

 

Here is the rushing yards rankings for the 14 playoff teams last year.  Some takeaways.

 

3 out of the top 4 rushing teams did not make the playoffs.

The teams in the Super Bowl finished 23 and 25th in rushing.

Half of the playoff teams ranked in the bottom half in rushing.

A really good running game guarantees you about 8 wins (see Ryan, Rex).

 

1. PHI

5. TENN

6. BUFF (obviously a lot of that is Josh Allen)

8. NE

9. DAL

10. ARI

16. KC
18. GB

21. LAC

23. CIN

25. LAR

26. TB

28. LV

29.  PITT

 

For comparison, here are the passing rankings.  Takeaways:

 

The top 10 passing teams all made the playoffs.

12 out of the 14 playoff teams finished in the top half passing

The five lowest ranked playoff passing teams did not win a single playoff game.

You won't get far in the playoffs without a very good passing game unless you have both a top rushing game and a dominant defense (see 2019 49ers and Jimmy Garoppolo).

 

1. TB

2. DAL

3. LAC

4. KC

5. LAR

6. LV

7. CIN

8. GB

9. BUF

10. ARI

14. NE

15. PITT

24. TENN

25. PHI

 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Billy Claude

[ExiledInIllinois]

No brainer.   Why Marino or Fouts never won a SuperBowl.

Bills came close in XXV...

[DCofNC]

9 hours ago, Rampage said:

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.

I think this plays a major factor in it.  The best defense is one that’s not on the field.  If you have sustained 7-10 minute drives, you cut the game way down for the other team.  Give Josh Allen 4 possessions to throw all he wants, the best he can do is be perfect and score 32 on you.  Give him 8 possessions and you’re giving room for error and many more scoring opportunities. Control the clock, control the game. 

[machine gun kelly]

10 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

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.

I just opened this thread now, and that was exactly my thoughts.  Yardage is fun to look at when you see the Bills ranked 6th in rushing, but only 9th in passing.  The key is the overall was 3rd in pts., and 5th in overall yards. DVOA makes much more sense.

 

I do want to see a more effective running game, but I just mean when they decide to run with everyone not named Allen.  I’m hopeful Allen keeps his running in his back pocket until the Chiefs and Packers.  Anyone who has eyes knows we had an effective passing game last year, but still we only ranked 9th.

[Since1981]

8 hours ago, CorkScrewHill said:

Eagles -3rd rushing; 13th passing

Patriots - 5th rushing; 9th passing

Chiefs - 23rd rushing; 4th passing

Tampa - 29th rushing; 4th passing

Rams - 25th rushing; 5th passing

I like this kind of fact group better than raw X yards. More representative of the nuance that an effective run game is  useful but a bottom 15 pass team won’t reliably win in 2022.  
 

I agree too, our QB can’t be a 700 yd rusher. Bad for his and our future 

[eball]

This is an oversimplification, but you pass to score points and run to keep defenses honest.

 

The most important aspect of a good run game is to prevent defenses from keying on the pass, and then to eat clock at the end of games.

 

You don’t consistently win in the NFL being one-dimensional.  Teams that completely ignore the run game do not win championships.

 

[mjt328]

10 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

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.  

 

One of the reasons that I believe our offense will be better under Ken Dorsey.

 

It wasn't until the final quarter of the year that we managed to develop a running game.  Part of it was the O-Line blocking better.  Part of it was Josh Allen taking off more often.  Part of it was Daboll just being willing to focus on establishing the ground game.

 

At no point did we suddenly become a "running" team.  But once defenses knew we could actually move the ball on the ground, the entire offense became pretty much unstoppable.  All it really took was the threat.

 

[bobobonators]

11 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

^^^

 

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

 

You just better not neglect your ability to run

Didnt the Colts have all-world Taylor at RB, a decent defense, and still miss the playoffs? 

[Coach Tuesday]

14 minutes ago, bobobonators said:

Didnt the Colts have all-world Taylor at RB, a decent defense, and still miss the playoffs? 

Yes.  It’s a terrible take that has been debunked carefully and systematically in this thread, but don’t expect the OP to change his mind.

[prissythecat]

36 minutes ago, bobobonators said:

Didnt the Colts have all-world Taylor at RB, a decent defense, and still miss the playoffs? 

 

I think you are missing two points .  One the OP did say that in his opinion the article doesn't mean you just build a team running team.  Instead, it seems to highlight you cannot overlook the importance of a run game.   The article itself basically just shows that getting to the 100 yard rushing milestone tends to equate to higher chance of winning compared to having a 100 yard receiver or a 300 yard passer.

 

Also,  as other posters in thread have said,  the Bills themselves didn't do so hot when the offense was heavily shifted towards passing.    The offense really took off when they were able to present a decent semblance of a run game.

Edited September 6, 2022 by prissythecat

[Coach Tuesday]

6 minutes ago, prissythecat said:

 

I think you are missing two points .  One the OP did say that in his opinion the article doesn't mean you just build a team running team.  Instead, it seems to highlight you cannot overlook the importance of a run game.   The article itself basically just shows that getting to the 100 yard rushing milestone tends to equate to higher chance of winning compared to having a 100 yard receiver or a 300 yard passer.

 

Also,  as other posters in thread have said,  the Bills themselves didn't do so hot when the offense was heavily shifted towards passing.    The offense really took off when they were able to present a decent semblance of a run game.

Again, the issue is how you measure a successful running game.  A 100 yard rusher tells you almost nothing - how many carries did it take?  What about teams with over 100 yards rushing in a game using multiple runners?  What percentage of the runs resulted in a first down or were otherwise better than average against that opponent in that down and distance?  You need to measure the efficacy and efficiency of the running game - pointing to a single 100 yard rusher as correlating with winning percentages is a nearly useless stat.

[PromoTheRobot]

What's the winning% of teams that never punt?

[Bill from NYC]

2 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Again, the issue is how you measure a successful running game.  A 100 yard rusher tells you almost nothing - how many carries did it take?  What about teams with over 100 yards rushing in a game using multiple runners?  What percentage of the runs resulted in a first down or were otherwise better than average against that opponent in that down and distance?  You need to measure the efficacy and efficiency of the running game - pointing to a single 100 yard rusher as correlating with winning percentages is a nearly useless stat.

Also, 300 yards isn't the accomplishment that it used to be. Would the stats be WAY different if they used 350 yards instead?

 

[Coach Tuesday]

10 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Also, 300 yards isn't the accomplishment that it used to be. Would the stats be WAY different if they used 350 yards instead?

 

 

Yup.  Nor do we know whether the OP's stat is including games where the losing team ALSO had a 100 yard rusher, and if it is, whether it should be included (I'm not sure).

[Billy Claude]

25 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Also, 300 yards isn't the accomplishment that it used to be. Would the stats be WAY different if they used 350 yards instead?

 

 

Highly doubtful 350 would give much different results than 300.   As noted numerous times in this thread,  teams throw a lot because they are behind. A really big passing game is not indicative of a team winning. 

 

It would be better to look at just first half stats which presumably would not be affected as much by the game score.  I am not sure how one can extract those.

 

The fallacy is to use the correlation between 100 yards rushing and winning to conclude that a lot of running yards lead to winning so a team should emphasize building a good running game. Actually it is winning that leads to a lot of running yards, i.e., the cause and effect is reversed.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Billy Claude