How Has the Game Changed Over the Decades?

[Fritz]

I heard an absolutely fascinating claim on the radio tonight. It was staticky so I didn't catch the name, but in an interview this guy from - I think - footballoutsiders.com claimed that many announcers today overemphasize the importance of the running game. He says this is because many of them played in the 70's, when the running game was much more emphasized. Then he said this: that pro football was more pass-oriented in the 50's, 60's and even the 40's than it was in the 70's.

So I had to check this out. Went to Profootballreference.com and took some random samples. Here they are:

Year #Passes Passes Yds/G Rush Att/G Yds/G
Comp./G Att/G

1943 9.6 - 21.7 141.7 36.8 118
1945 9.6 - 21.2 143.8 36.2 122.7
1948 12.5 - 26 173.9 37.9 151

1953 14 - 29.6 173.8 33.5 133.6
1955 12.7 - 26.5 159.8 36.8 147.1

1963 14.2 - 27.6 185.7 31.2 126
1965 14.2 - 27 183.8 30.8 127
1968 13.8 - 26.8 168.5 31.5 126

1973 12.6 - 24.3 140 35.5 144
1975 14 - 27 162.8 36.3 145
1978 14 - 26.4 158.8 35.9 141.8

2003 18.9 - 32 200 28.3 117
2005 19.1 - 32.2 203 28.1 112

Holy cow. There's lots to be said about all this, and I can't wait to read what you all make of this.

One thing I see is that the run/pass ration has changed over the years, and I'm tempted to go for cause/effect reasoning and say this is because - it seems - passing has become more efficient over time. In the forties and fifities teams completed less than half of their pass attempts. In the 2000's that has changed considerably. So it seems on the surface that passing is a more high-percentage option than it used to be. The seventies featured more running than the sixties, but the announcer appears to be wrong - the forties and fifties seem fairly equal to the seventies in terms of rushing attempts. However, the seventies seemed to feature an ability to make yards running - look how high the rushing yds/game is compared to other decades.

Wow. So were the seventies the be-all and end-all of rushing the football? And has it influenced not only announcers but those like me, who came of age in the seventies, to over-emphasize the need to run the football?

Does this affect the way we judge play-calling today?

[mraynrand]

Do those numbers include the AFL? I assume so. Without looking, I'm thinking: pass happy. What happens to 'pro football' stats in the 2000s if you factor in arena ball?

[Harlan Huckleby]

all i know is that there aren't any players like Brian Noble in the league anymore and I don't like it.

[mraynrand]

Or guys like Bryan Cox with the swim board coming out of their collar.



http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f161/dodgersrule18/coxb.jpg

[Tyrone Bigguns]

ty wishes fritz knew how to make tables. :wink:

(edit)
let's see if tables work here:

<table>
<tr>
<td>Year </td><td>#Passes </td> <td> pass Attempts</td> <td>passing Yards</td> <td>rushing attempts</td><td>Yards</td>

</tr>
</table>

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty apologizes to Fritz...and curses Mad. :roll:

[mraynrand]

ty wishes fritz knew how to make tables. :wink:

(edit)
let's see if tables work here:

<table>
<tr>
<td>Year </td><td>#Passes </td> <td> pass Attempts</td> <td>passing Yards</td> <td>rushing attempts</td><td>Yards</td>

</tr>
</table>

Even if it worked, that's too much work!

[TravisWilliams23]

I think the defense and defensive schemes were becoming dominant in the 70's. The NFL was seeing lower scoring games and wanted to keep or gain the fan base so they devised rules to "allow" the receivers to basically run free down the field + they were smart enough to change rules to "protect" the quarterbacks more. I remember watching games where the defense would absolutely mug a receiver off the line with no chance of that receiver getting open. At the time it was legal and smart defensive coordinators used it to take another teams weapon out of the game.
That's one of the biggest reasons why the passing game is showing so much improvement over the running game now.

[pbmax]

Its a great site and while it takes a while to slog through and become familiar with the stats, they make some great points. And that is the website as you have it: Football Outsiders (http://footballoutsiders.com).

As for the run to win philosophy see:

100 Yards Rushing = Win? (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2003/09/18/ramblings/stat-analysis/43/)

and Establish the Run Early to Win-Not So Much (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/index.php?p=3)

The point most likely made on the radio (if its the one I have heard Schatz making before) isn't that statistics show why teams to choose the run/pass mix, but that the analysis that came of age during the 70s in the NFL and the 3 yards and a cloud of dust in College, often focuses on gameplans that are unique compared to other decades.

They also have data that show running early isn't a good indicator of success. Running late is, for obvious reasons. Packer fans who remember our Defense pre-Bates in 2004, will remember a defense that on based on statistical ranks looked like it could defend the pass. But what was really happening was that that D gave up the lead early to teams that were passing and then were so bad at run D that they could not get the ball back late in the game.




I heard an absolutely fascinating claim on the radio tonight. It was staticky so I didn't catch the name, but in an interview this guy from - I think - footballoutsiders.com claimed that many announcers today overemphasize the importance of the running game. He says this is because many of them played in the 70's, when the running game was much more emphasized. Then he said this: that pro football was more pass-oriented in the 50's, 60's and even the 40's than it was in the 70's.

[pbmax]

Your point is a good one. And given the way the game had been played previously, it also puts the NFL decision in 1978 in a good light. At the time, the rules changes were widely criticized as changing the fundamental nature of the game by helping the offense.

Given that offense was at an all-time low in the early 70s, this decision makes more sense. Commentators, to me, did not seem to warm to the idea of passing more than running until the 49ers had won two Super Bowls. The usual cautionary tale of being out of balance was the San Diego Chargers of Fouts, Winslow, Jefferson and Joiner.


I think the defense and defensive schemes were becoming dominant in the 70's. The NFL was seeing lower scoring games and wanted to keep or gain the fan base so they devised rules to "allow" the receivers to basically run free down the field + they were smart enough to change rules to "protect" the quarterbacks more. I remember watching games where the defense would absolutely mug a receiver off the line with no chance of that receiver getting open. At the time it was legal and smart defensive coordinators used it to take another teams weapon out of the game.
That's one of the biggest reasons why the passing game is showing so much improvement over the running game now.

[mraynrand]

The usual cautionary tale of being out of balance was the San Diego Chargers of Fouts, Winslow, Jefferson and Joiner.

And who wanted to watch that? But the west coast offense really came into prominence because offenses like the Chargers (and Oakland) were based on a passing game that made liberal use of the deep ball - requiring 7 step drops and resulting in sacks-o-plenty. Thus, the dump off/check down off the 3 step drop that neutralizes the pass rush. The rules will always have to be tweaked, because constant adjustment. As long as the NFL doesn't ever look too much like the arena league, it should be OK.

[Deputy Nutz]

Most points=wins

I don't think that has ever changed. There are all kids of philosophies about winning football games, but the only one that is 100% factual is the above equation.

[Fritz]

I think the defense and defensive schemes were becoming dominant in the 70's. The NFL was seeing lower scoring games and wanted to keep or gain the fan base so they devised rules to "allow" the receivers to basically run free down the field + they were smart enough to change rules to "protect" the quarterbacks more. I remember watching games where the defense would absolutely mug a receiver off the line with no chance of that receiver getting open. At the time it was legal and smart defensive coordinators used it to take another teams weapon out of the game.
That's one of the biggest reasons why the passing game is showing so much improvement over the running game now.

You make a good point about rules changes, but there are a couple of issues that remain a mystery to me:

First, why was % of completions so low? I mean, mugging a guy at the line means he won't get open - so that would explain fewer attempts. But why were offenses of the 40's and 50's not able to complete half the attempts they made? Did they throw more long balls, maybe?

Secondly, the rules changes don't quite explain why teams in the 70's seemed to be able to gain so many yards rushing. I guess I ought to figure the yards/carry, but on the surface it appears to be higher than in other decades. Why?

[Patler]

You make a good point about rules changes, but there are a couple of issues that remain a mystery to me:

First, why was % of completions so low? I mean, mugging a guy at the line means he won't get open - so that would explain fewer attempts. But why were offenses of the 40's and 50's not able to complete half the attempts they made? Did they throw more long balls, maybe?


I don't know exactly when the rule changed, but the "5 yard contact" rule changed things significantly. It used to be the DB could stay in contact with the receiver until the ball was in the air. By maintaining contact you can feel the direction the receiver is going, and maintain tighter coverage. Practically, it meant more situations where both players were going for the ball (their rights to it are equal) Subconsciously, it was just a more physical game around the point of reception. Now the DB gets called if he touches the receiver and his options are to get the ball or lay the hit on afterward.

You didn't used to see as many multiple receiver formations, motion, etc all designed to get mismatches and cause confusion and easy completions.

Lots of little reasons too:

Receivers now use gloves that help greatly in catching a ball. Bare hands, then moderate amounts of "stick-um" were all that was allowed. Todays gloves are designed to make it less likely the ball will slide through.

Over the years the shape and surface texture of the ball has changed, new balls are put into play frequently.

Teams are allowed to "prepare" the balls their offense will use in the game, to their QB's preference.

The rules to protect the QB give them the confidence to stand in and throw, without thinking of a hit after the throw. QBs commonly got drilled just from a lineman's "momentum" carrying him into the QB.

[Fritz]

Hmm. Interesting. Any theories about why the 70's teams seemed to do so well running the ball? These days if you get over 100 yards on the ground it's an accomplishment. In the seventies the league average was around 142 yds/game. Wow. And that's with maybe - maybe four or five more carries per game than the sixties, and nearly an equal number of carries in the forties and fifties. Hmm.

I thought - as far as the balls went - that a couple of years ago the NFL stopped allowing teams to "work over" the balls that were used in the game. Remember Ryan Longwell and other kickers talking about how hard it was going to be to kick the "new" balls?

It appears from what you and others have said, that the rules changes are the primary reason passing is so much more efficient these days.

This brings up one of my original questions: I'm a fan of the running game. Am I overemphasizing its importance because I came of age in the seventies?

I wonder what some of you other old timers think of this. I still get uncomfortable when the coach calls for 35 - 40 passes in a game.

[Patler]

I thought - as far as the balls went - that a couple of years ago the NFL stopped allowing teams to "work over" the balls that were used in the game. Remember Ryan Longwell and other kickers talking about how hard it was going to be to kick the "new" balls?


Teams still prepare the balls used by their own offense. There was a long article last year about what all went in to preparing the balls the way Favre likes them. They would do a bunch, then he would pick the ones he liked best.

Kicking is done with yet other balls, so-called "K-balls" that are brand new and "untouched". Kickers said they were slippery.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Hmm. Interesting. Any theories about why the 70's teams seemed to do so well running the ball? These days if you get over 100 yards on the ground it's an accomplishment. In the seventies the league average was around 142 yds/game. Wow. And that's with maybe - maybe four or five more carries per game than the sixties, and nearly an equal number of carries in the forties and fifties. Hmm.

I thought - as far as the balls went - that a couple of years ago the NFL stopped allowing teams to "work over" the balls that were used in the game. Remember Ryan Longwell and other kickers talking about how hard it was going to be to kick the "new" balls?

It appears from what you and others have said, that the rules changes are the primary reason passing is so much more efficient these days.

This brings up one of my original questions: I'm a fan of the running game. Am I overemphasizing its importance because I came of age in the seventies?

I wonder what some of you other old timers think of this. I still get uncomfortable when the coach calls for 35 - 40 passes in a game.

I love this topic because I too am a fan of the running game. So is MM. He's been quoted many times saying he wants to run more and is uneasy with 40-plus passes per game.

As for what changed over the years, I think it's the advent of the single running back position with the FB being primarily a blocker. In the old days both the FB and the HB were skill positions. The FB was usually a bigger, more powerful runner. The HB was usually a faster, more elusive, multi-talented running back. Both positions were used as offensive weapons about equally, both the FB and the HB were good receivers as well.

Jim Taylor and Paul Hornung were prototypical examples. But in the 70's the Packers had John Brockington and McCarther Lane in the same backfield.

If the Packers did the same thing today, they might have both Ryan Grant and BJ in the backfield 90% of the plays. Rushing attempts would be split between them.

I think by doing this you gain some tactical advantage, but I think coaches nowadays are willing to give that up in order to get more blocking for a single good rusher.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: "How Has the Game Changed Over the Decades?"


I think ticket prices have gone way up.

[MJZiggy]

What a phenomenal thread! Worth compliments and a bump, gentlemen. :glug:

[K-town]

In the early '70s, I believe they moved the hash-marks closer together in the NFL. This was supposed to help the running game as the field was more balanced; there wouldn't be such a pronounced short and wide side of the field. Plays to the "short" side would not be automatically hemmed in, the offense would not at a disadvantage, etc. Perhaps our resident historians can confirm this.
Also, moving the has-marks closer together made field goals easier. To prevent a glut of field goals, the NFL in 1973 (?) moved the goal posts 10 yards back.

[Noodle]

Love this topic!

Hash marks got moved closer in '72. In '72 goal posts moved back and missed FGs over 20 yards went back to other team at the previous LoS.

It was a combo of changes in '74 and '77 and '78 that opened it up for the passing game. In '74, offensive holding went from 15 to 10 and refs started restricting more downfield contact with receivers. In '77, they banned the head slap, Deacon Jones's favorite move. And in '78, they implemented the 5-yard rule for contact with receivers and, more importantly, allowed OL to extend their arms and open their hands when pass blocking, effectively legalizing holding within the shoulder pads.

The Dolphins won the SB in '74 with 7 pass attempts, 7! They were the epitome of hard running teams, and they had the FB (Csonka) and HB (Morris/Kick) combo that Maxi mentions. The year before, the 17-0 team won the SB with 11 attempts.

[MJZiggy]

In the early '70s, I believe they moved the hash-marks closer together in the NFL. This was supposed to help the running game as the field was more balanced; there wouldn't be such a pronounced short and wide side of the field. Plays to the "short" side would not be automatically hemmed in, the offense would not at a disadvantage, etc. Perhaps our resident historians can confirm this.
Also, moving the has-marks closer together made field goals easier. To prevent a glut of field goals, the NFL in 1973 (?) moved the goal posts 10 yards back.

I thought they moved 'em to prevent guys running into the goalposts?

[TravisWilliams23]

I remember when the fullback was just as valuable as the halfback in the running game.

Maxi mentions Taylor and Hornung and Noodle mentions Csonka and Kiick/Morris. If you had a good team in the 60's & 70's you had a good running back tandem of fullback and halfback.

The fullback now is kind of a TE & lineman. They've got to be able to pass block & drive block - it's almost like a pulling guard. Now, the fullback mainly blocks and occasionally catches a pass but rarely carries the ball.

Joe Gibbs in the early 80's popularized the spread offense by using a mobile H-back instead of a fullback to create advantageous mismatches.

Larry Csonka retired in 1979 and is the last fullback to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. That's a long time and I don't see any of today's fullbacks getting elected on their blocking skills alone.

Most teams use the I formation to run the ball. Back then the Pro Set or split back set was used to keep the defense guessing who was getting the ball. In the Ice Bowl, the play Bart Starr called his best call in the game was the "give" to Chuck Mercein, the fullback, to get 1st and goal. Now that play isn't a remote possibility.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I love this topic as well.

As Noodle and Travis mention the NFL football pendulum swung pretty far toward the rushing game in the 60's and 70's, so far that teams experimented with QB's that were more noted for their legs than their arms. Bobby Douglas was all the rage for the Bears. Joe Kapp was the Viking QB. And who wants to remember the Packers' experiment drafting Jerry Tagge as the team's savior? (In this sense, Michael Vick was a throwback.) And, if memory serves, college ball was deep into the wishbone offense (Nebraska, Oklahoma, Barry Switzer). In my opinion the game became boring...too much rushing.

However, today the pendulum has swung the other way. The forward pass is in vogue and just about every team runs the West Coast offense which uses the pass as a substitute for the hand-off or lateral. Sixty passes a game is commonplace. In today's game the QB's and receivers are the superstars and you better have good ones if you're planning on making the playoffs. Sure, there are exceptions -- Tomlinson and Adrian Peterson, for example -- but the fate of the Chargers and the Vikings doesn't rest in the legs of these guys. It rests in the arms of Rivers and Tavaras Jackson and in the hands of their receivers. In my opinion, modern defenses are too sophisticated for a single "i" back to beat you. I suspect defense coordinators will even come up with a semi-answer to Peterson this year.

But I digress. Look at the Packers. They have a coach who claims to be an old school rushing guy, but his team is packed with receivers who can run with the ball in the open field. He feeds them short passes and they run like halfbacks. Run after the catch yards is the team's most prized statistic. And he loves to throw four wideouts at defenses. And if he calls three or four runs that go nowhere, he's quick to revert back to the pass.

In the old days coaches used the run to soften up defenses and make them vulnerable to the pass. Nowadays it's the reverse. It's not uncommon to start a game with a dozen passes in a row. Years ago, Starr (and Lombardi) would start a game with a dozen rushes in a row, whether it resulted in a touchdown or in four 3-and-outs. It sometimes wore on the fans' patience, but it was the way the game was played.

Today the fans have no patience for the running game. They want drama and dynamic action, which means the pass. They'll boo three rushes in a row that do not result in a big run or a first down.

Years ago the left end and flanker positions made a living downfield and the running game opened them up. The holes in defenses were downfield because most defenses played man-to-man. Today it's zone in one form or another. So offenses attack the zones where the seams are, up front with slants or short pitches across the middle. Years ago, that short stuff went to the tight ends, who were generally bruisers like Ron Kramer, or to the HB or FB circling out of the backfield. They never thought of "stretching the field" with a TE.

In fact, "stretching the field" is a modern day concept, born out of west coast offenses and zone defenses. Years ago you just pounded the ball, got the DB's and LB's to creep up and cheat and look for the run. Then you went deep over the top of them to your wide receivers.

The game was simpler back then and I think a hell of a lot more interesting.