The Argument For Passing More

[pbmax]

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/01/run-pass-balance-historical-analysis.html

In essence, Defenses are still paying too much attention to run defense, evidenced by running efficiency being close to unchanged over the years, even after the 1978 rules changes for the passing game made passing more efficient.

The argument goes that if teams will ignore the passing game that is now killing them, you should keep passing until they adjust. Seems a commentary on the Packers defense this season, to a degree, doesn't it?

[Joemailman]

So Capers should have been as concerned with Favre as he was with Adrian Peterson? Something like that?

[CaptainKickass]

I'm still wondering how far off the day is.....when there will be a team that lands 2 (or 2+) starting caliber QB's... and plays them in rotation and toward their strengths like most every other position in the NFL.

[Lurker64]

I'm still wondering how far off the day is.....when there will be a team that lands 2 (or 2+) starting caliber QB's... and plays them in rotation and toward their strengths like most every other position in the NFL.

That day is pretty far off. There aren't currently even 32 starting caliber quarterbacks in the league, what makes you think there will be a surplus someday?

[sheepshead]

Every year, 10-15 teams start training camp not knowing who their starting QB is. Makes me appreciate Aaron Rodgers all the more.

[Fritz]

As I was watching the Super Bowl-winning New Orleans Saints essentially eschew the run for the pass, no matter the down and distance, I came to the realization that my constant begging for the Packers to run the damn football is now simply outmoded thinking.

When I see a QB dropping back, I see sacks and interceptions and incompletions, whereas when I see a running back get the ball I see better second and third downs and distances. 3rd and six instead of 3rd and ten. Things like that.

The fact of the matter is, though, that passing has become less risky and more efficient than it was thirty-five years ago when my attitudes on this issue were first formed. The risks are lower - the chances of incompletions, for example, seem lower now (look at QB completion percentages now and then from the mid-70's). And the rewards are higher than those of running.

So despite the fact that it's against my nature, I see that passing gets teams farther and further. That's just the way it is. The last team to win a SB with an old school running attack/defense carries the day makeup was the Baltimore Ravens team.

I have been wrong.

[Maxie the Taxi]

pb, you're killing me with this thread!! :D

Seriously, the only way the Packers could pass more would be to pass on every stinking down. And I'm sure McStubby is looking into that.

As far as our defense goes, I don't think it's a matter of Capers being stuck on stupid. He just doesn't have the horses yet to do what he wants. Look at New Orleans and the Colts. They can pressure elite QB's, contain the run, and still maintain coverage. They've got a more mobile D-line, faster linebackers who can effectively drop into coverage and safeties that can cover mistakes. (The Colts missed Bob Sanders.)

I think more than anything else, defenses are trending toward the 3-4 as the answer. However in order to counter both the run and the pass in the 3-4, you need speed at every position. And Capers knows, you can't coach speed.

[Maxie the Taxi]

As I was watching the Super Bowl-winning New Orleans Saints essentially eschew the run for the pass, no matter the down and distance, I came to the realization that my constant begging for the Packers to run the damn football is now simply outmoded thinking.

When I see a QB dropping back, I see sacks and interceptions and incompletions, whereas when I see a running back get the ball I see better second and third downs and distances. 3rd and six instead of 3rd and ten. Things like that.

The fact of the matter is, though, that passing has become less risky and more efficient than it was thirty-five years ago when my attitudes on this issue were first formed. The risks are lower - the chances of incompletions, for example, seem lower now (look at QB completion percentages now and then from the mid-70's). And the rewards are higher than those of running.

So despite the fact that it's against my nature, I see that passing gets teams farther and further. That's just the way it is. The last team to win a SB with an old school running attack/defense carries the day makeup was the Baltimore Ravens team.

I have been wrong.

How about the NY Giants in 2008? How about the NY Jets in 2011? :)

I'm still Old School. In today's passing game it's the team that has the ball last that wins in these boring shootouts, and that's usually determined by an intercepted pass. Ask Favre. Ask Peyton Manning.

Next thing the league will do is eliminate the 3 point stance, which won't hurt the passing game because the only individual on offense in a 3-point stance now is the center. Plus, most of the defense is standing up now, except one or two. But it will just about do away with the running game where getting low and using leverage is key.

Oh, yeah, and let's go back to leather helmits too, by God! :) :)

[Fritz]

Sorry, Maxie, but I don't agree. The Jets didn't get to the SB and the Giants passed more than they ran.

The league is different now.

[mission]

What if the Pack would have passed it every single play this past season.... ?

Think about it.

Overall, would we have scored more points? Would we have won any games we didn't? Lost one we didn't?

I think there would be a lot more points put up, which could adversely affect defensive stats.

There were times this year when we would get into that passing mode and was literally unstoppable. Then we'd run a couple times 'just because that's football' and we'd slow it all down again.

The protection issues need to factor in also but I think Finley could be a 100 catch guy if we *really* went to the air instead of this need to get conservative with (small) leads.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Sorry, Maxie, but I don't agree. The Jets didn't get to the SB and the Giants passed more than they ran.

The league is different now.

No, no, no. I posted that the Jets would be there in 2011. :)

[Maxie the Taxi]

mission, it's a Catch-22.

In the NFL today you live by the sword and you die by the sword. Coaches know that when you get involved in a passing shoot-out you score a lot of points, but that the chances of having the ball last and winning are 50/50 because your opponent is also scoring a lot of points.

So when these pass-happy teams have a lead late in the game, they try to increase their odds of winning by slowing the game down, running out the clock and lessening the chance of a game-changing turnover to preserve their lead. The problem is these pass-happy teams can't sustain a running game for long, so they either go three and out or revert back to passing and the inevitable 50/50 shootout.

Does any of that make sense? :)

[Smidgeon]

In the NFL today you live by the sword and you die by the sword. Coaches know that when you get involved in a passing shoot-out you score a lot of points, but that the chances of having the ball last and winning are 50/50 because your opponent is also scoring a lot of points.

I think that's mostly unsubstantiated. In some cases it's true, but how many QBs are out there that are good enough to maintain a shootout without a crucial error or several crucial errors?

[sharpe1027]

mission, it's a Catch-22.

In the NFL today you live by the sword and you die by the sword. Coaches know that when you get involved in a passing shoot-out you score a lot of points, but that the chances of having the ball last and winning are 50/50 because your opponent is also scoring a lot of points.

So when these pass-happy teams have a lead late in the game, they try to increase their odds of winning by slowing the game down, running out the clock and lessening the chance of a game-changing turnover to preserve their lead. The problem is these pass-happy teams can't sustain a running game for long, so they either go three and out or revert back to passing and the inevitable 50/50 shootout.

Does any of that make sense? :)

I'm not sure. Moving up and down the field quickly by passing doesn't mean that you have to give up a higher percentage of scores. You can shorten the game by running, and have a lower score overall, but that doesn't mean you will be ahead more often than if you passed the ball and the game had more total possessions.

I guess I would say that if you can run the ball, it can be a benefit if your team is good enough to consistently get leads because you can shorten the game while you are ahead. It would also be a benefit when you play a better team because you can shorten the game and lessen their advantage by keeping the score low and close enough to have a shot at the end.

I would still say that being able to run the ball has become less important than being able to pass it. You can win with virtually no running game, but you can't win without at least a respectable pass game.

[CaptainKickass]

I'm still wondering how far off the day is.....when there will be a team that lands 2 (or 2+) starting caliber QB's... and plays them in rotation and toward their strengths like most every other position in the NFL.

That day is pretty far off. There aren't currently even 32 starting caliber quarterbacks in the league, what makes you think there will be a surplus someday?

I never said there'd be a surplus. It's only gonna be one team that does it first.

And just to illustrate my point further - I just remembered that there was a team last season who is about as close to the 2 QB scenario as a team can get:

The Eagles.

I'm not arguing that Vick is starting caliber - but he was, and others would argue he still is. We're already seeing "wildcat" spread through the NFL like an STD. It just seems to me that there'd eventually be a progression.

Nothing wrong with asking "what if's" in the offseason.

.

[MadScientist]

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/01/run-pass-balance-historical-analysis.html

In essence, Defenses are still paying too much attention to run defense, evidenced by running efficiency being close to unchanged over the years, even after the 1978 rules changes for the passing game made passing more efficient.

The argument goes that if teams will ignore the passing game that is now killing them, you should keep passing until they adjust. Seems a commentary on the Packers defense this season, to a degree, doesn't it?

If a team willingly goes one dimensional, they will get stopped. Look at the Dallas game this year. They got behind a little, gave up the on the run and almost got shut out. An older example was the '95 playoff game in SF where the Packers basically dared the 49'ers to run the ball.

[Scott Campbell]

A running game sure is handy when you're protecting a small lead and need to grind out some clock. A running game sure is handy when you want to create better receiver mismatches by forcing teams to put 8 in the block.

Grant had 1300 yards. The ground attack is still pretty important to the Packers.

[Joemailman]

Weather can also be a factor. What works for a dome/warm climate team may not work for the Packers in November and December. Also, Fritz mentioned that New Orleans abandoned the running game in the Super Bowl. However, because they were 6th in the league in rushing during the regular season, the Colts still had to respect the running threat.

[Scott Campbell]

Weather can also be a factor. What works for a dome/warm climate team may not work for the Packers in November and December. Also, Fritz mentioned that New Orleans abandoned the running game in the Super Bowl. However, because they were 6th in the league in rushing during the regular season, the Colts still had to respect the running threat.


I would have abandoned the run too given the way they performed in the red zone.

[sharpe1027]

A running game sure is handy when you're protecting a small lead and need to grind out some clock. A running game sure is handy when you want to create better receiver mismatches by forcing teams to put 8 in the block.

Grant had 1300 yards. The ground attack is still pretty important to the Packers.

No doubt. A good running game is great thing. However, as PB said, more and more teams are passing until stopped to setup the run, rather than running to setup the pass.

[gbgary]

pb, you're killing me with this thread!! :D

Seriously, the only way the Packers could pass more would be to pass on every stinking down. And I'm sure McStubby is looking into that.



this!! lol

[pbmax]

Weather can also be a factor. What works for a dome/warm climate team may not work for the Packers in November and December. Also, Fritz mentioned that New Orleans abandoned the running game in the Super Bowl. However, because they were 6th in the league in rushing during the regular season, the Colts still had to respect the running threat.
Of all the truisms bandied about, this is one I trust the least. Certainly, there are conditions (like the Meadowlands or the Chicago game in '07) where passing is difficult, but everyone used to go on and on about how the Packer's could never keep the West Coast offense up unless they ran better under Holmgren. Once he started winning in December, all the complaints disappeared.

The reason they disappeared is not that Holmgren grew more fond of running or that they got better at it, but with a very good team, the Packers found themselves with the lead and a specific reason (clock) to run more in the second half.

The Packers are an average, possibly slightly above average running team with the possible exception of early in the year. I think that will work if the defense can avoid shootouts at home.

[pbmax]

The point of the article is not to argue abandoning the run. But to point out that while passing efficiency has been increasing since the 90s (right around 1992 if I read the chart correctly), teams have not yet increased their share of passing like they did in the aftermath of the rules changes in 1978.

That argument is coupled with the fact that running efficiency has remained very steady, which the author believes indicates a stubbornness to switch to pass defenses more often. These two factors he argues, means that defenses are unwisely allocating their resources and offenses should take advantage by passing in some instances where they currently run (or the defense expects run).

But this is just one hypothesis about the data's implication. Can anyone else think of a reason run efficiency has remained right around 4 yards a carry since 1948? Even during times of increasing and decreasing pass efficiency?

[Maxie the Taxi]

I can't think of a reason, pb, other than the fact that the running game still boils down to plain, old blocking and tackling. There's not a lot that can change in that equation unless the NFL decides to outlaw one or the other. Nor is there a technique or technology that I can think of that would give the clear advantage to one or the other. The two have stalemated at about 4 yards per carry.

I did have one thought I'd like your opinion on. Assuming that defenses haven't concentrated on the pass as the article suggests, do you see any scheme on the horizon that WOULD better put the emphasis on pass defense?

In other words, rather than having 3 or 4 down linemen, 4 DB's and 3 or 4 guys who are inbetween D-Linemen and DB's, and then changing personnel in passing situations to nickle and dime configurations, maybe defenses should merely play 5 (or 6) big and fast DL pass rushers and 6 or 5 fast and agile DB's all the time.

Basically, what I'm asking is the prototypical LB a thing of the past?

To focus on stopping the pass game, defenses of the future have to: 1) pressure the QB; and 2) cover fast and agile receivers and RB's. A 5/6 defense (or 6/5 defense) would do that. No longer do we have to count on a "tweener" LB to be big enough to pressure the QB and strong enough to stop the run, yet fast and agile enough to be a great cover guy.

[Patler]

The gross number of running plays/game has decreased, but I wonder if the gross number of short yardage running plays has decreased at a similar rate? If teams on average still run the same number of 3rd and short or 4th and 1 running plays, or QB sneaks as in the past; i.e. plays not designed to get more than a very minimal gain, these plays now constitute a larger percentage of overall running performance. This may mean that average effectiveness of a running play designed to get as much as it can, even to go all the way, has also gone up.

The difference between running effectiveness and passing effectiveness on first or second down might not be as great as suggested by the article.

[The Leaper]

For a team that plays outdoors in poor weather conditions during the latter third of the season, a running game is still very important. Sure, passing wildly is fine for teams like the Saints and Colts, who play home games in a dome. For the Packers...I don't see it.

Honestly, I think the running numbers today are skewed compared to the past because with free agency teams are unwilling to take the time to develop an OL unit that is cohesive. The greatest OLs aren't the ones with the most talent...but the ones who have played together for 4-6 years and fully understand the scheme and what each individual's role is. That just doesn't happen much anymore.

[pbmax]

Maxie - I think Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith are the answer to your question. To commit to defend the pass would mean in some ways to get smaller and faster. Ironically, for this discussion, Polian ordered Teerlinck, the Colts D line coach, to go with bigger DTs this year to improve run defense. Perhaps they had gone too far the other way.

Patler - The kind of running play definitely would have an impact. But I think the number of 3rd and 4th short yardage plays has gone down, if not in overall numbers, then in percentage. One reason would be the willingness of teams of teams to pass in short yardage. The second would be a larger percentage of 1st downs are converted by passing in earlier downs.

Leaper - I simply do not buy this reasoning. As I stated, the Packers under Holmgren, who had a tremendous record in December and January were an average running team. That team won in the cold (and threw for red zone TDs and short yardage) And when they ran for unusual yardage, it was with a fourth quarter lead. By the terms of your hypothesis, Holmgren's success was not possible.

I think the flaw in the argument is the kinds of running plays called, and when they are called have changed. There are very few runs from beyond 3rd and 2 anymore. So a team that used to have a 1 - 3 yard carry on 3rd down against a short yardage D, no longer has that play in their average.

[Patler]

Patler - The kind of running play definitely would have an impact. But I think the number of 3rd and 4th short yardage plays has gone down, if not in overall numbers, then in percentage. One reason would be the willingness of teams of teams to pass in short yardage. The second would be a larger percentage of 1st downs are converted by passing in earlier downs.

That could be right, but, as I wrote, I just wonder. The data he provided does not tell us. I guess my point is this: He makes fairly specific conclusions from data that is superficial at best, at least in the manner he presents it.

I'm not at all impressed by his analysis on this one. It's the type of thing you see when a person has a point they want to make, then finds and manipulates data to support it, rather than analyzing data independently to reach a conclusion based on the analysis.

[pbmax]

Patler - The kind of running play definitely would have an impact. But I think the number of 3rd and 4th short yardage plays has gone down, if not in overall numbers, then in percentage. One reason would be the willingness of teams of teams to pass in short yardage. The second would be a larger percentage of 1st downs are converted by passing in earlier downs.

That could be right, but, as I wrote, I just wonder. The data he provided does not tell us. I guess my point is this: He makes fairly specific conclusions from data that is superficial at best, at least in the manner he presents it.

I'm not at all impressed by his analysis on this one. It's the type of thing you see when a person has a point they want to make, then finds and manipulates data to support it, rather than analyzing data independently to reach a conclusion based on the analysis.
I agree, but play by play and data by down are hard to come by. Football Outsiders makes their database available for sale, but I think it only goes back to 1994. They got to 1997 or so with the digitally available pdf files for gamebooks. Prior to that, they must contact the Hall of Fame and then arrange for scans and OCR to be done of the physical gamebooks.

Its funny how OCR scanning is still a dicey proposition, more than 10 years after it was introduced. If you go to the SI vault and read any article not available on the web, you can still catch scanning errors in the text.

[Joemailman]

Weather can also be a factor. What works for a dome/warm climate team may not work for the Packers in November and December. Also, Fritz mentioned that New Orleans abandoned the running game in the Super Bowl. However, because they were 6th in the league in rushing during the regular season, the Colts still had to respect the running threat.
Of all the truisms bandied about, this is one I trust the least. Certainly, there are conditions (like the Meadowlands or the Chicago game in '07) where passing is difficult, but everyone used to go on and on about how the Packer's could never keep the West Coast offense up unless they ran better under Holmgren. Once he started winning in December, all the complaints disappeared.

The reason they disappeared is not that Holmgren grew more fond of running or that they got better at it, but with a very good team, the Packers found themselves with the lead and a specific reason (clock) to run more in the second half.

The Packers are an average, possibly slightly above average running team with the possible exception of early in the year. I think that will work if the defense can avoid shootouts at home.

I disagree. The fact that the Packers became a better running team in 1996 and 1997 had more to do with the emergence of Dorsey Levens at halfback and William Henderson at fullback. All 4 playoff games those years were played in cold or wet conditions. The fact that the Packers had a strong running game in all 4 games was a huge factor.

[Fritz]

Another factor here is simply the decreased risk in passing. With rules changes about defending receivers, changes in thinking about fumbles and what constitutes a catch (stuff that would've been considered fumbles years ago are now seen as dead balls) and the changes in protecting quarterbacks, plus my own thinking that frankly the skill players are more skilled than they used to be (honestly, look at the crazy catches guys make now), there is simply a higher percentage chance that you're going to complete your pass than there was thirty or forty years ago.

So now third and three, once considered a running down, is now seen as probably a passing down.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Another factor here is simply the decreased risk in passing. With rules changes about defending receivers, changes in thinking about fumbles and what constitutes a catch (stuff that would've been considered fumbles years ago are now seen as dead balls) and the changes in protecting quarterbacks, plus my own thinking that frankly the skill players are more skilled than they used to be (honestly, look at the crazy catches guys make now), there is simply a higher percentage chance that you're going to complete your pass than there was thirty or forty years ago.

So now third and three, once considered a running down, is now seen as probably a passing down.

Rules changes? Yeah. Players better? Well...

... ... yeah... ... :oops:

But they're better across the board. Individuals like Don Hutson and Raymond Berry could play and star in today's game. Play second fiddle to no one. But journeymen of yesterday might not be able to make the grade. There's just more athletes today, better trained and practiced.

[The Leaper]

Leaper - I simply do not buy this reasoning. As I stated, the Packers under Holmgren, who had a tremendous record in December and January were an average running team. That team won in the cold (and threw for red zone TDs and short yardage) And when they ran for unusual yardage, it was with a fourth quarter lead. By the terms of your hypothesis, Holmgren's success was not possible.

Strongly disagree Max.

In their run to winning SB XXXI, the Packers averaged a ton of yards on the ground over the last month of the season into the postseason. I don't call that "an average running team" like you would. Here's the proof:

week 14 - 126 yds vs CHI
week 15 - 103 yds vs DEN
week 16 - 111 yds vs DET
week 17 - 233 yds vs MIN
Div playoff - 139 yds vs SF
NFC Champ - 201 yds vs CAR
SB XXXI - 115 yds vs NE

And running with a fourth quarter lead is PRECISELY why you build with a run dominant team. Physically wearing down a defense through continually pounding the ball down their throat remains the most effective way to win a football game, even in today's modern era where rules have helped the passing game.

Bennett and Levens were crucial to the dominance of the Holmgren-era Packers. Granted, the pure WCO that Holmgren ran allowed for the run game to be less of a factor much of the time due to the strength of the passing game on the edges...particularly screens. In essence, the pure WCO extended the run game to include short passes to backs.

[The Leaper]

All 4 playoff games those years were played in cold or wet conditions. The fact that the Packers had a strong running game in all 4 games was a huge factor.

Amen.

If the Packers build some kind of finesse high-passing attack...and it suddenly is 10 degrees with 25 mph winds in January...there goes the offense.

For Green Bay, a team that plays in brutal weather conditions during the postseason, you need to build at least a capable run game that can cope with carrying a heavy load if needed.

I certainly agree that teams should take advantage of the rule changes to help the passing game...and we already have a dominant pass offense. However, if we expect to become title contenders we need to build a capable run game that can dominant playoff games on a frigid Lambeau Field.

[pbmax]

The 1996 Packers (I think that was Super Bowl XXXI season) were ranked as follows for rushing:

14th in attempts, 11th for yards and had a 4.0 YPC that ranked 12th. This was the year Holmgren perfected running against nickel defenses. Levens would enter the game in passing down and distance and the Packers would run 2 TE or 3 WR (and single back) and the defense would switch to nickel. Then they would run Levens against the nickel front (now KYPack may correct me here, but I think when Keith Jackson entered the game, the defense expected pass and treated him like a WR - but this is only my memory). In short, they used the threat of the pass to make the run successful. Not the reverse.

That said, I do not dispute that it is valuable to be able to control the ball and eat clock when you have the lead in the 2nd half. But that is different than being a dominant running team or a team that dominates with the run. With a lead in the 2nd half, virtually ALL teams will run more. Even those in domes. I am unsure how the Lions game (or the Super Bowl) apply given that this dispute is about late season, poor weather and the need to run the ball for a cold, outdoor venue team like the Packers in Lambeau.

Dec 1 Bears game, the daytime high was 36 degrees F, .003 inches precip

I don't have access to gamebooks for this season, so picking this apart by quarter and by drive is tough. But the first two scores were a Keith Jackson 19 yard TD pass and a punt return TD by Desmond Howard. The Packers held the lead after the Howard TD in the second half. Levens had a career high 69 yards on 5 carries. 3 of his carries netted 49 of those yards in one drive after they had the lead (14-10 before this drive). The Bears D was ranked 21 against the pass and 13th against the run by FO.

The Packers ran 26 plays and passed 27 (yardage 216P/126R). Halftime it was 7-7, 3rd Q ended 14-10. This was Freeman's first game back from the arm injury (I think it was his arm) and his main targets were Free, Jackson, Rison and Beebe. Chewy didn't make the stat sheet.

Dec 8 Broncos game was 33 degrees, no precip
I am not sure we can take too much from this game as the Broncos sat several starters on offense. The Packers dominated total yards 379-176. 103 on the ground and 280 in the air.

38 pass plays, 29 run plays. Half was 13-3, 3rd ended 20-6. Broncs were 4th versus the pass and 6th against the rush.

Dec 22 was 30.9 degrees, no precip
All you need to know about how seriously this game was in doubt is that Jim McMahon was the QB early in the fourth quarter. Minnesota pass D was 10th. Rush D was 28th ranked.

It was 10-10 at half. End of 3rd it was 24-10. Pass yards 212, rush yards 233. 25 passes versus 41 runs. I would bet 1/3 of those runs were called in the fourth Qtr with McMahon in the game.

Jan 4 was 35.5 degrees, precip .01 (the rain and mud game - must have happened prior to GameDay if the Weather Almanac is to be believed)

Packer scored and took a 2 TD lead thanks to Desmond Howard. He took one punt back for a TD, and another one back to the 4 yard line, from which the Packers scored. At half, the Pack led 21-7, after 3 is was 28-14. 15 passing attempts netted 79 yards, 39 rushing atts netted 139 yards.

San Fran was 3rd against the pass and 7th against the run.

Jan 12 was 9 degrees (good visibility for passing though)

Frigid NFC Championship game versus Carolina. Saw the invention of Cheese Internet if you saw SportsCenter after the game. Packers were down 7-0 early then scored 17 in the 2nd. Haltime was 17-10. 3rd quarter was 27-13. 29 passes yielded 292 yards, 45 carries yielded 201 yards. Gameday stories give no hint of the breakdown by quarter.

Carolina was 6th against the pass and 10th against the run.

The short version? The Packers ran in the second half when they had a lead of a TD or more. The exception would be San Fran where they barely attempted to pass, however, they had the lead the entire time. But they used the pass to get that lead.

[pbmax]

1995 Holmgren Packers were 20th in atts, 26th in yards and 28th (3.5) in YPA.

1996 Holmgren Packers were 14th (att), 11th (yds) and 12th (4.0) YPA

1997 Holmgren Packers were 10th (att), 12th (yds) and 11th (4.2) YPA

1998 Holmgren Packers were 18th (att), 25th (yds) and 29th (3.4) YPA


???? ???????? Packers were 21st (att), 23rd (yds), and 21st (3.9) YPA
???? ???????? Packers were 28th (att), 21st (yds), and 12th (4.1) YPA
???? ???????? Packers were 14th (att), 17th (yds), and 18th (4.1) YPA
???? ???????? Packers were 15th (att), 14th (yds), and 13th (4.3) YPA

Now, this is where I would normally yell and harp about cumulative stats and go on and on about how the cumulative stats do not provide context. And except for the YPA numbers, these league rankings do not tell a complete story. But I think the way to describe the Holmgren rushing attack is competent. And it was very good on the road to their first Super Bowl. I'll look up more situation independent stuff later this week as I get bored at work.

By the way, who do you think was responsible for a Packers rushing attack that is arguably better than Holmgren's, at least in Yards Per Attempt (and its near equal in total yards as far as league rank goes)?

[Fritz]

That would be the Sherman teams of the early 2000's, right?

And we know how many NFC Championship games they got to.

[pbmax]

That would be the Sherman teams of the early 2000's, right?

And we know how many NFC Championship games they got to.
Nope, not Sherman. :D

[3irty1]

Great thread. In the NFL today passing wins and subsequently stopping the pass wins. The Colts of recent years are the best example of this. They are obviously awesome at passing, have tons of guys that can cover and a monster pass rush and usually sucked against the run. Probably why the Chargers had their number every AFC championship but still are a contender every year.

McCarthy and Thompson seem to know this as McCarthy has installed a pass first offense where the ground game is used to set up play action and when the climate dictates it. Thompson has given the team a plethora of WRs since coming to Green Bay and on paper has assembled one of the best secondaries in the NFL. Even the prototypical Thompson lineman is an athletic guy with great pass pro tools. Ryan Grant is a specimen but he's a role player. He's very fundamental, makes quick decisions, and rarely fumbles. If he could catch and run routes he'd be the perfect fit for this offense. IMO all we're missing is a little better pass pro and a little better pass rush to be elite in both offense and defense.

[Smidgeon]

By the way, who do you think was responsible for a Packers rushing attack that is arguably better than Holmgren's, at least in Yards Per Attempt (and its near equal in total yards as far as league rank goes)?

I'm guessing M3.

[pbmax]

By the way, who do you think was responsible for a Packers rushing attack that is arguably better than Holmgren's, at least in Yards Per Attempt (and its near equal in total yards as far as league rank goes)?

I'm guessing M3.
You Brettcha.

Those numbers are for years 2006-09, from top to bottom. I was surprised that 07 wasn't better, but I suppose a half year of struggling really cost them overall.

Very few people can get their head around the fact that the Packer have a competent running game. Enough of one to make a championship run. Their power numbers (short yard and goalline the last two years have been quite good as well).

[Fritz]

Well I'll be darned.

It's funny how now people look back at Holmgren as a coach who conceived and supported a good running game. At the time, many people - myself included - were apoplectic about his insistence on constantly passing the ball...I remember a few television announcers telling us that Holmgren considered the five yard pass a running play.

[The Leaper]

Great thread. In the NFL today passing wins and subsequently stopping the pass wins. The Colts of recent years are the best example of this. They are obviously awesome at passing, have tons of guys that can cover and a monster pass rush and usually sucked against the run. Probably why the Chargers had their number every AFC championship but still are a contender every year.

The Colts are a great example.

They supposedly have the greatest QB of all-time, have had HOF caliber WRs and TEs, and an above average OL.

They only have one ring to show for it.

Passing wins...in the regular season.

Defense and turnovers win in the postseason. The Jets, with a rookie QB and nothing special anywhere on offense should teach you that.

[The Leaper]

It's funny how now people look back at Holmgren as a coach who conceived and supported a good running game. At the time, many people - myself included - were apoplectic about his insistence on constantly passing the ball...I remember a few television announcers telling us that Holmgren considered the five yard pass a running play.

Holmgren's teams were far closer to a pass-run balance than McCarthy's are...especially in the postseason when it matters.

[sharpe1027]

Great thread. In the NFL today passing wins and subsequently stopping the pass wins. The Colts of recent years are the best example of this. They are obviously awesome at passing, have tons of guys that can cover and a monster pass rush and usually sucked against the run. Probably why the Chargers had their number every AFC championship but still are a contender every year.

The Colts are a great example.

They supposedly have the greatest QB of all-time, have had HOF caliber WRs and TEs, and an above average OL.

They only have one ring to show for it.

Passing wins...in the regular season.

Defense and turnovers win in the postseason. The Jets, with a rookie QB and nothing special anywhere on offense should teach you that.

I think the Jets show that good defense doesn't win in the postseason... :lol:

The Colts did better than 30 other teams, many of which had better defenses that created more turnovers.

The Saints won it all, there were plenty of teams with better defenses.

[pbmax]

The Colts O line is very average. Manning is responsible for a lot of sack avoidance. The point of the article is that there is still more value to be gained by extra passing than there is with the current balance. That is not the same as saying that passing alone will win.

As far as post-season records, many teams fare poorly in the post-season compared to their regular season record. That is because the quality of competition goes up, not because the running game is magical. There is one exception; running the ball, play to play, is less likely to lead to a lost fumble. And turnovers can make the difference when teams are close. However, if that was all there was, then the Jets would have won it all.

The run is an important statistical indicator of success (as opposed to good game strategy) in two ways; early in the game, if you are gaining good yardage (almost regardless of attempts), that is an indication you will succeed. The other, better indicator, is the number of attempts you have late in the game. Because that is what teams do when they have the lead.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/establishment-clause

[pbmax]

It's funny how now people look back at Holmgren as a coach who conceived and supported a good running game. At the time, many people - myself included - were apoplectic about his insistence on constantly passing the ball...I remember a few television announcers telling us that Holmgren considered the five yard pass a running play.

Holmgren's teams were far closer to a pass-run balance than McCarthy's are...especially in the postseason when it matters.

At first glance yes...

McCarthy Runs Passes

2009(1) 20 47
2007(2) 49 59
======================
Total 69 106
Pass Ratio= 60%
Playoff Record: 1-2


Holmgren

1998 28 36
1997 84 103
1996 120 78
1995 69 108
1994 58 86
1993 38 73
======================
Total 397 484

Pass Ratio= 54% Pass
Playoff Record: 9-5

[pbmax]

But even if running indicated winning (correlation), it is not causation (must run to win).

McCarthy Playoff Wins

SEA(07) 35 24
=======================
Pass Ratio= 40%


McCarthy Playoff Losses

GNT(07) 14 35
ARZ(09) 20 47
=======================
Total 34 82
Pass Ratio= 70%


Holmgren Playoff Losses

DAL(93) 13 47
DAL(94) 23 47
DAL(95) 12 43
DEN(97) 20 43
SFO(98) 28 36
=======================
Total 96 216
Pass Ratio= 69%

Holmgren Playoff Wins

Total 301 268
Pass Ratio= 47%


Now there are two ways you can interpret this data. Coaches are dumb and ill-prepared and tilt to the passing game on mere whimsy, ego or panic.

Or teams pass when they are behind and they run when they are winning.

[pbmax]

From Football Outsiders, here is the technical explanation of some of that second set of playoff win/loss numbers:


So far, evidence would seem to suggest that establishing the run isn't really that important for winning games in today's NFL. The evidence also seems to back those who say that winning teams build their rushing totals while running out their leads. But in the interest of space, I've given a lot of top five and bottom five lists. What about the other 22 teams?
As it turns out, looking at all 32 teams together reinforces what we've seen so far: that more rushing attempts early don't indicate a winning team, but rushing attempts late do.

Statisticians have a concept called the correlation coefficient that measures how much one variable influences another variable. A correlation of 1 means the two variables are completely connected; 0 means they have no connection.

The correlation between first quarter rushing attempts and team wins is a measly .171. That means there is almost no connection between running a lot in the first quarter, and winning a lot of games. The correlation between fourth quarter rushing attempts and team wins, on the other hand, is .750. That's a sizeable relationship.

By the way, the correlation for first quarter rushing yards and team wins is a bit higher, though still not substantial, at .260. The correlation for fourth quarter rushing yards and team wins is a much lower, at .486. So early in games, it is more important to gain yards than just to run the ball for the heck of it, but at the end of the game the number of runs is more important than how many yards they gain.

From: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/establishment-clause