Defense wins championships?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I was listening to Cris Carter & other ESPN boys talking about New England. The Patriots are tearing-up the league despite a mediocre defense because the offense controls the score and game. Pats defense is a bit better than mediocre, perhaps.

Colts have a bad defense, or at least an unbalanaced one, and they were a 12-4 team with Manning.

Are the Packers OK with an average defense?

[MadScientist]

Passer rating differential.

It can still be big even with a mediocre D, if you have a good enough QB.

[denverYooper]

Passer rating differential.

It can still be big even with a mediocre D, if you have a good enough QB.

Packers are 2nd to the Lions this year so far... Pats are close. Green Bay was number 1 last year.

The Belichick way lately seems to be to give up yards but not necessarily points and make the other team do a lot of work to score and rely on their offense being more efficient. I'd heard (can't remember the source) that the reason they were continuing to throw on teams during blowouts in '07 was that Belichick didn't trust the D at all. They're always in the mix but it hasn't earned them a Lombardi since they started doing it that way.

Colts and Saints won Lombardis by controlling the game on O. I know the argument that their Ds played well down the stretch but both of those teams were considered strong offensively and mediocre on D.

As far as the Packers go, the defense does look as though it might not be more than mediocre, although I still think it'll take 4-5 games to get a better idea. I don't think we've seen much yet as far as the offense goes. A few sorta interesting 3 TE formations, maybe, but if this group stays healthy on O we're likely to see some crazy shit go down later in the year. Perhaps we'll see a glimpse in the Bears game but I won't be surprised if they keep it relatively simple for now and wait for that Thanksgiving game to start really turning out the playbook. The line looks better so far (remember when we had to wait 8 games for Rodgers to stop getting killed?) and they have a real running game with Grant, Starks and a promising young RB in Green. Health will be key but this might be the year we really see the offense roll like we'd expected last year.

If this O can hang a 30burger on the Bears (and win, of course) I'm going to start double-fisting the kool-aid.

[Deputy Nutz]

This league is a changing. Defense in the post season is what wins championships, defenses don't win shit in the 2nd week of the season.

[vince]

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?21596-Defense-Wins-Championships&highlight=passer+rating+differential

[gbgary]

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?21596-Defense-Wins-Championships&highlight=passer+rating+differential

we better get our shit together then.

[vince]

we better get our shit together then.
The Packers currently have a Passer Rating Differential of +33.5 (126.4 vs. 92.9). They led the league last year with a PRD of +31.7. I'd say they're doing quite well. It ain't about the yards you give up. It's about touchdowns and turnovers.

[Fritz]

I sure feel like the D bailed out the offense toward the end of the year last year. Like, the Bears game that was, what 10-6? And the Jets game.

[bobblehead]

Passer rating differential.

It can still be big even with a mediocre D, if you have a good enough QB.

Correct. Just look at the Chargers last season.

[bobblehead]

This league is a changing. Defense in the post season is what wins championships, defenses don't win shit in the 2nd week of the season.

QFT....and you need to be able to pound the rock as well.

[Harlan Huckleby]

QFT....and you need to be able to pound the rock as well.

blocking and tackling too.


that was a smart aleck remark.


I don't think you need that much defense if you can put up 40 points.

[Pugger]

Most of the teams' defenses league wide have played pretty mediocre so far this season.

[vince]

QFT....and you need to be able to pound the rock as well.
Kind of like in the Super Bowl eh?

Pounding the Rock
Steelers - 126
Packers - 50

Correlations to winning in 2010 from the previous thread on this subject.
Passer Rating Differential - .77
Pounding the Rock - .30

Those are the undeniable facts. Are you saying you think they change in the playoffs?

[pbmax]

Correct. Just look at the Chargers last season.


Final 2010 Passer Rating Differential
Team Off. PR Def. PR Net
1 Green Bay 98.93 67.23 +31.7
2 New England 109.76 81.23 +28.53
3 San Diego 101.85 76.14 +25.71
4 Pittsburgh 95.25 73.78 +21.47
5 Tampa Bay 96.25 77.57 +18.68
6 Baltimore 93.64 76.34 +17.3
7 Kansas City 90.06 78.08 +11.98
8 Philadelphia 92.06 80.61 +11.45
9 Atlanta 90.80 82.19 +8.61
10 New Orleans 90.81 83.16 +7.65

Just look at New England and their 2nd ranked rush attack (FO). Or the Jets and their 5th ranked (FO) unit.

[Pugger]

It isn't surprising that the teams with the most success have QBs playing at a ridiculous level. The way the rules are today it favors offenses and passing in particular.

[denverYooper]

Read something on fifthdown this morning that ties together multiple threads (Cam Newton, Defense): http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/why-passing-totals-can-be-deceiving/



The idea of “good defense” has morphed from stopping the opponent to making big plays. The best way to do this is to trick an offense into making a mistake. This is why we’ve seen rapid growth in versatile and confounding 3-4 schemes that are predicated on disguise concepts and blitzes (especially out of sub-packages). This has been the defensive approach of the past two Super Bowl champions (the ’09 Saints were second in the N.F.C. in forced turnovers and the ’10 Packers were fifth; ahead of the Packers were the Steelers, Patriots, Giants, Bears and Eagles – all playoff teams save for the 10-6 Giants).

Creating big plays requires taking risks (which often means blitzing). Those risks are contributing to more passing yards. But passing yards don’t always lead to points. Defenses know that with space being limited, offenses can’t spread out and dictate terms of engagement in the red zone the same way they can between the 20s. Thus, in taking risks, defenses have embraced more of a “bend but don’t break” mentality.


I don't have a reference atm, but I think the Packers opponents are 3/11 thus far in the red zone.

The Packers are 5/9. (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/130170948.html)

[Scott Campbell]

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/why-passing-totals-can-be-deceiving/

[denverYooper]

There is a good chance that with their full offensive complement this year, Green Bay's offense might spend less time on the field but produce more points -- which would make the defense "worse" by some metrics (yards, TOP).

[gbgary]

The Packers currently have a Passer Rating Differential of +33.5 (126.4 vs. 92.9). They led the league last year with a PRD of +31.7. I'd say they're doing quite well. It ain't about the yards you give up. It's about touchdowns and turnovers.


http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/why-passing-totals-can-be-deceiving/

i guess so. gotta morph my old-school defensive thinking.

[bobblehead]

Final 2010 Passer Rating Differential
Team Off. PR Def. PR Net
1 Green Bay 98.93 67.23 +31.7
2 New England 109.76 81.23 +28.53
3 San Diego 101.85 76.14 +25.71
4 Pittsburgh 95.25 73.78 +21.47
5 Tampa Bay 96.25 77.57 +18.68
6 Baltimore 93.64 76.34 +17.3
7 Kansas City 90.06 78.08 +11.98
8 Philadelphia 92.06 80.61 +11.45
9 Atlanta 90.80 82.19 +8.61
10 New Orleans 90.81 83.16 +7.65

Just look at New England and their 2nd ranked rush attack (FO). Or the Jets and their 5th ranked (FO) unit.

I don't see the Jets on this list. It must be a fluke that they made the championship game. And as I said when we had the original topic, lets look at the QB's in the top 10...do they correlate with the top 10 QB's in the league? I am not surprised that teams with exceptional QB's win more games....nor am I surprised that teams with bad defenses lose more games....or that teams with good defenses win more games.....or that teams with bad QB's lose more games....or that where these things correlate that the effect may be even more obvious....HOLY SHIT, we are on to something....better teams win more.

[bobblehead]

Kind of like in the Super Bowl eh?

Pounding the Rock
Steelers - 126
Packers - 50

Correlations to winning in 2010 from the previous thread on this subject.
Passer Rating Differential - .77
Pounding the Rock - .30

Those are the undeniable facts. Are you saying you think they change in the playoffs?

Lets analyze a bit. In the first quarter both teams ran ok. Pitt had 33 yards on 5 carries, GB had 21 on 5 carries. Big Ben threw a pick 6.

Second Quarter Pitt had 10 yards on 6 carries....3 for negative yards. GB had 2 possessions. The first was a 3 and out from shotgun without running the ball. On the second Starks ripped off a 12 yard run before ARod threw a TD pass. We were up 21-10 going into the half. Pitt did pad the rushing stats against the nickel D in the second half, but couldn't overcome turnovers. They also couldn't overcome a first half where Ben threw the pick 6 and then they were unable to run the ball effectively (or did we stop the run?) and fell behind by 2 scores.

Look, I have agreed all along that superior QB play is the first indicator of success in the NFL.....however, if you can't run and can't stop the run you won't win in the playoffs (even if you are lucky enough to get there). We beat Pitt in the superbowl for 3 reasons. ONe, our D was better at both run and pass. Two, our QB was better. Three we ran enough to keep them off balance.

I will make a bet, or prediction. The eagles are likely to be the biggest disappointment in the league this year. They are horrendous against the run. The rams ran all over them before Jackson went down (and they stopped running). Against the Falcons they LOADED up to stop the run in the second and third quarters and the Falcons didn't adjust, and still won (don't blame vick, the backup QB played fine). The eagles will give up a ton of yards to the run and will be fatigued late in every game. They will be a huge let down.

[pbmax]

I don't see the Jets on this list. It must be a fluke that they made the championship game. And as I said when we had the original topic, lets look at the QB's in the top 10...do they correlate with the top 10 QB's in the league? I am not surprised that teams with exceptional QB's win more games....nor am I surprised that teams with bad defenses lose more games....or that teams with good defenses win more games.....or that teams with bad QB's lose more games....or that where these things correlate that the effect may be even more obvious....HOLY SHIT, we are on to something....better teams win more.

Jets are 0-2 in the AFC Championship game. And the Chargers struggled most not with their run game, but with their special teams. And good running attack did not save the Patriots either.

But this is not a matter of a single case or exception. Go read the entire CHFF article on this and consistently, through eras, passing offense and passing defense has been the difference. Running games have been up and down, same with run defense and rules, but passing makes the difference. Not that you would never run, but passing (and defending the pass) get you to the lead more often.

[pbmax]

I will make a bet, or prediction. The eagles are likely to be the biggest disappointment in the league this year. They are horrendous against the run. The rams ran all over them before Jackson went down (and they stopped running). Against the Falcons they LOADED up to stop the run in the second and third quarters and the Falcons didn't adjust, and still won (don't blame vick, the backup QB played fine). The eagles will give up a ton of yards to the run and will be fatigued late in every game. They will be a huge let down.

First, the fact that the Packers played nickel with a lead should tell you how much the did NOT fear the run at that point of the game, not that they were better versus the run than the Steelers.

But more importantly, the run defense could be a downfall for the Eagles, if they don't play with the lead.

[denverYooper]

First, the fact that the Packers played nickel with a lead should tell you how much the did NOT fear the run at that point of the game, not that they were better versus the run than the Steelers.

But more importantly, the run defense could be a downfall for the Eagles, if they don't play with the lead.

They had a 10 point lead on Sunday and the Falcons still ran back into the game.

[MadScientist]

I will make a bet, or prediction. The eagles are likely to be the biggest disappointment in the league this year. They are horrendous against the run. The rams ran all over them before Jackson went down (and they stopped running). Against the Falcons they LOADED up to stop the run in the second and third quarters and the Falcons didn't adjust, and still won (don't blame vick, the backup QB played fine). The eagles will give up a ton of yards to the run and will be fatigued late in every game. They will be a huge let down.

Interesting point, but I think what is going on hear is not so much about the run or pass defense. What it really sounds like is that the Eagles have an exploitable weakness that could well kill their chances. A few years ago the Vikings were impossible to run against, but they couldn't stop the pass, and teams like GB and NE just destroyed them with out even trying to run. Philly has some great corners, but bad linebackers, and so that's where teams will attack, if they can. They keep talking about offenses needing balance to keep a defense honest, but defenses need to be balanced in their ability to make stops to keep the offense honest.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think the NFL is becoming a very different game. Bunch of smurfs running all over the field catching passes. I'm not sure how important the running game is on either side of the ball.

[Fritz]

It's hard to give up old perceptions rooted in what's thought of as wisdom. In this case, running the ball and stopping the run. This also ties in to our perceptions of those two activities as more cave-man-like and therefore more manly than passing and defending the pass. When a sports medium wants to symbolize the old NFL they don't show you shots of Dick "Night Train" Lane or Emile Tunnel (who was that guy? You old timers know who I mean?) - you get Ray Nitschke or Butkus with steamy breath looking at the camera.

But that CHFF article is excellent and revealing - it really is all about passing and defending the pass. Even the glory teams of the 60's were less dependent upon Taylor and Hornung and more dependent upon Starr and Carroll Dale and Boyd Dowler and Company.

I'm still trying to adjust to it.

[Deputy Nutz]

All rules that have been made or reinforced in the last 10 years have been to bolster the passing game. No rules have applied to helping the running game. In fact in todays game you are foolish to base your offense around the run. It is disappointing and I do not like it. I like to watch smashmouth football, not a 7 on 7 tournament.

[mraynrand]

All rules that have been made or reinforced in the last 10 years have been to bolster the passing game. No rules have applied to helping the running game. In fact in todays game you are foolish to base your offense around the run. It is disappointing and I do not like it. I like to watch smashmouth football, not a 7 on 7 tournament.


http://crickethighlights.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/cricketers/Mike_Smith-3.jpg

I love you , Deputy Nutz. Sincerely, Mike Smith

[bobblehead]

Interesting point, but I think what is going on hear is not so much about the run or pass defense. What it really sounds like is that the Eagles have an exploitable weakness that could well kill their chances. A few years ago the Vikings were impossible to run against, but they couldn't stop the pass, and teams like GB and NE just destroyed them with out even trying to run. Philly has some great corners, but bad linebackers, and so that's where teams will attack, if they can. They keep talking about offenses needing balance to keep a defense honest, but defenses need to be balanced in their ability to make stops to keep the offense honest.

But that was kinda my point. In the NFL you can't be BAD at anything. This all came about because MM would forget to call running plays and/or we were inept at it and I would go bonkers. I hate a team that can't run. My point was that if you can't run and stop the run you will lose. I understand that being able to pass and stop the pass is just as important. And special teams. See my point? People are getting giddy saying we don't need a running game or need to worry about stopping the run because all indicators are built around the pass and stopping the pass. I argue that they bleed into one another. When you stop the run you make a team one dimensional and its easier to beat them. If you can't run teams simply load up and pin back the ears to stop the pass. Balance wins in the NFL and you can't be particularly bad at anything.

[bobblehead]

I think the NFL is becoming a very different game. Bunch of smurfs running all over the field catching passes. I'm not sure how important the running game is on either side of the ball.

I rest my case.

[bobblehead]

But that CHFF article is excellent and revealing - it really is all about passing and defending the pass. Even the glory teams of the 60's were less dependent upon Taylor and Hornung and more dependent upon Starr and Carroll Dale and Boyd Dowler and Company.



And again I rest my point. Star was a 50% passer. This ratio mischaracterizes the game back then. It was a running league. Great teams got ahead and forced the other teams into passing situations and defended the pass very well. Are you really saying that the packers of the 60's were all about the pass?

[bobblehead]

All rules that have been made or reinforced in the last 10 years have been to bolster the passing game. No rules have applied to helping the running game. In fact in todays game you are foolish to base your offense around the run. It is disappointing and I do not like it. I like to watch smashmouth football, not a 7 on 7 tournament.

This I agree with. It is a passing league first. You still damn well better be able to stop the run. How many goal line stands for ball game did the packers have last year (and one this year). That is about stopping the run first, then the pass. Passing is first in importance, but you damn well better be able to do both.

[bobblehead]

Incidentally, since I gamble on NFL I went through and checked the matchups this week for this stat. The teams with a 40 point advantage this week are as follows: (Home teams in caps)

lions +68, CHARGERS +44, cardinals +45, packers +44, steelers +39

Those are the huge differences. Lets see the blowouts commence (for the record I hope this is as strong as it says, I want to win money).

[mraynrand]

This I agree with. It is a passing league first. You still damn well better be able to stop the run. How many goal line stands for ball game did the packers have last year (and one this year). That is about stopping the run first, then the pass. Passing is first in importance, but you damn well better be able to do both.

Remember how GB beat the Colts in 2008 - they played nickel and took their chances against the run. Because the Colts couldn't run the ball effectively, they got crushed. And that's with the #2 player in the NFL this year according to the NFLN.

[mraynrand]

Incidentally, since I gamble on NFL I went through and checked the matchups this week for this stat. The teams with a 40 point advantage this week are as follows: (Home teams in caps)

lions +68, CHARGERS +44, cardinals +45, packers +44, steelers +39

Those are the huge differences. Lets see the blowouts commence (for the record I hope this is as strong as it says, I want to win money).

I would never put money on a Packer Bear game, expecting a blow out. They happen, but too often when you least expect it (2007 at Chicago). And tight games happen even when the teams are totally mismatched - for examples: 1985 at GB, 1997 at Chicago.

[Guiness]

Incidentally, since I gamble on NFL I went through and checked the matchups this week for this stat. The teams with a 40 point advantage this week are as follows: (Home teams in caps)

lions +68, CHARGERS +44, cardinals +45, packers +44, steelers +39

Those are the huge differences. Lets see the blowouts commence (for the record I hope this is as strong as it says, I want to win money).

Arizona? On the road?

I don't think Seattle's that bad.

[Fritz]

Let me do some resting of my own case, Bobble. Here's a link to a site that has the stats for the legendary '66 team:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/1966.htm

Note that while there were more rushing attempts than passing (59% - 41%), the number of yards gained passing far exceeded (by a thousand yards) those gained rushing.

Also, note that Bart Starr's career completion percentage was 57.4%, not 50%. Favre's is 62%.

[mraynrand]

"Defense doesn't win championships, teams win Championships." - Bart Starr

[pbmax]

And again I rest my point. Star was a 50% passer. This ratio mischaracterizes the game back then. It was a running league. Great teams got ahead and forced the other teams into passing situations and defended the pass very well. Are you really saying that the packers of the 60's were all about the pass?

You could say it about the late championship teams of Lombardi.


Year PAtt PYds RAtt RYds PNYA PNYAO RYA RYAO LgTeams
1960 11 7 2 2 6 5 3 4 13
1961 14 9 3 1 3 3 1 7 14
1962 14 10 2 1 6 1 1 3 14
1963 13 7 2 2 3 2 2 2 14
1964 14 12 3 1 7 1 2 4 14
1965 14 11 6 10 8 1 11 9 14
1966 15 6 3 8 1 1 13 5 15
1967 15 11 4 2 6 1 4 15 16

Lombardi was definitely interested in running the ball. But you might be interested to know that the Packers were less than ordinary running the ball in 1965 and 1966. Both were Championship years. Their run defense was ordinary in 1961 and less than ordinary in 1965 and 1967. All three teams won championships. In fact, if run game effectiveness correlated as strongly to Championships as passer rating diferential, the Packers would have been in serious trouble in 65, 66 and 67.

On the other side of the playsheet, look at the Packers pass game defense. Forget the number of plays or yards (both influenced by end of the game strategies and score) and look at the Net Yards pre Attempt (PNYA and PNYAO). Never a ranking that could be called average. After 1960, they never ranked lower than 3rd. Combine that with a pass offense that in terms of Net Yards per Attempt was never below average, this was the consistent characteristic of the Lombardi Packers.

No, you cannot say the 1960s Packers were all about the pass, but it was their best characteristic and their biggest advantage, if you consider offense and defense.

[bobblehead]

You could say it about the late championship teams of Lombardi.


Year PAtt PYds RAtt RYds PNYA PNYAO RYA RYAO LgTeams
1960 11 7 2 2 6 5 3 4 13
1961 14 9 3 1 3 3 1 7 14
1962 14 10 2 1 6 1 1 3 14
1963 13 7 2 2 3 2 2 2 14
1964 14 12 3 1 7 1 2 4 14
1965 14 11 6 10 8 1 11 9 14
1966 15 6 3 8 1 1 13 5 15
1967 15 11 4 2 6 1 4 15 16

Lombardi was definitely interested in running the ball. But you might be interested to know that the Packers were less than ordinary running the ball in 1965 and 1966. Both were Championship years. Their run defense was ordinary in 1961 and less than ordinary in 1965 and 1967. All three teams won championships. In fact, if run game effectiveness correlated as strongly to Championships as passer rating diferential, the Packers would have been in serious trouble in 65, 66 and 67.

On the other side of the playsheet, look at the Packers pass game defense. Forget the number of plays or yards (both influenced by end of the game strategies and score) and look at the Net Yards pre Attempt (PNYA and PNYAO). Never a ranking that could be called average. After 1960, they never ranked lower than 3rd. Combine that with a pass offense that in terms of Net Yards per Attempt was never below average, this was the consistent characteristic of the Lombardi Packers.

No, you cannot say the 1960s Packers were all about the pass, but it was their best characteristic and their biggest advantage, if you consider offense and defense.

And again you aren't getting my point. Let me say it for a tenth time. I understand that the league is more pass oriented. More than ever before. I understand that pass plays average more yards than runnnig plays.

The run is the dagger, the pass is the sword. If you can't run and can't stop the run its a lot harder to pass. Teams focus on stopping the run so teams must pass. Run comes first. It always will. You can't pass to set up the run. Why would you...if you are passing well why run? To keep a defense honest. To set up favorable down and distance. You can't and wouldn't run 20 screen plays a game, the screen does NOT substitute for the run. Teams might pass first, but they still must run effectively to keep a defense honest and give the OL a fighting chance.

Metrics might show that pass rating efficiency differential is more predictive of winning, but that will never mean that you don't have to run consistently and effectively to win. It could simply mean that your D plays the run so well that the passers are consistently facing 3rd and long making you more efficient at defending it. It could also mean that you are average against the run and awesome against the pass. What I am sure of is that it doesn't mean you are crappy against the run, can't run the ball, but pass it just so perfectly.

Outliers in the cases of the truly great QB's....who is arguing that Tom Brady doesn't give you a MUCH better chance to win than Tavarius Jackson? Who is even implying that TJack with Peterson is superior to Brady with whofuckinever? I have always said and will always say that superior QB play is paramount to NFL success. That directly ties into the passer differential. It actually has little to do with the defense. Sometimes you simply have an awesome defense, like ours last year where we bled yards between the 20's vs. the run, but we proved damn well that we could stop the run when it counted. We also had a marquee QB keeping pressure on the other team to try and score fast and furious.

I hope this makes it clear (but I doubt it). I am not doubting this ratio predicts winning very effectively, but simply that it doesn't mean teams should line up nickel all day and ignore the run. It also doesn't mean that teams shouldn't worry about calling a running play on a regular basis. Shotgun empty backfield on first down is my biggest bitch. Long scoring drives that involve a few run plays and take time discombobulate the other teams offense when they have to sit too long. These other factors matter.

I analyze stats on a daily basis. A=B doesn't always mean that B=A. ALL FACTORS must be considered and this ratio simply doesn't tell the story from a coaching and play calling standpoint.

One last point. The cowboys of the '90's were dominant. Their run game was dominant. Aikman was underrated because they ran it so well. Just because you have a great QB doens't mean you are better off NOT having a great running game.

I can't make it any clearer. I get pissed when we are down 3 in the middle of the second quarter and MM calls 16 straight empty backfield shotgun plays. I think he makes it harder on his OL and puts his team in a position to fail. When Starks emerged last year and he began running again the game changed for us. So far this year I have been pleased. I hope it continues.

[Pugger]

And again I rest my point. Star was a 50% passer. This ratio mischaracterizes the game back then. It was a running league. Great teams got ahead and forced the other teams into passing situations and defended the pass very well. Are you really saying that the packers of the 60's were all about the pass?

They were more of a passing team after Hornung and Taylor left. And yes, today's game is a passing oriented game but you have to be able to run if only to eat up the clock and/or keep defenses honest. How many times did our offense not close out games because we couldn't convert a stinkin' 3rd and short and had to put the onus on the defense?

[pbmax]

I analyze stats on a daily basis. A=B doesn't always mean that B=A. ALL FACTORS must be considered and this ratio simply doesn't tell the story from a coaching and play calling standpoint.

If A=B but B!=A, then we are in serious trouble. In fact, if your theorem is true, it's worse than speeding neutrinos.

[pbmax]

And again you aren't getting my point. Let me say it for a tenth time. I understand that the league is more pass oriented. More than ever before. I understand that pass plays average more yards than runnnig plays...

The run is the dagger, the pass is the sword. If you can't run and can't stop the run its a lot harder to pass. Teams focus on stopping the run so teams must pass. Run comes first. It always will. You can't pass to set up the run. Why would you...if you are passing well why run? To keep a defense honest. To set up favorable down and distance. You can't and wouldn't run 20 screen plays a game, the screen does NOT substitute for the run. Teams might pass first, but they still must run effectively to keep a defense honest and give the OL a fighting chance...

Metrics might show that pass rating efficiency differential is more predictive of winning, but that will never mean that you don't have to run consistently and effectively to win. It could simply mean that your D plays the run so well that the passers are consistently facing 3rd and long making you more efficient at defending it. It could also mean that you are average against the run and awesome against the pass. What I am sure of is that it doesn't mean you are crappy against the run, can't run the ball, but pass it just so perfectly.

You are simply turning the run to win philosophy on its head here, and its no more logical in this instance. No one is arguing that 100% nickel and 100% pass are the way to go, just as no one expected teams to run 100% of the time in the seventies. Unless you were Chuck Knox.

But these are game theory tactics, not traits of winning teams. Of course a team that always passes will be more predictable. So in that sense, you do need to run, but I think the 2010 Packers show you do not need to be very good to make it work.

But no matter the tactics employed by championship teams, they excelled in passing and pass D succeeded where running and run D were far more variable for championship teams. The 1965 Packers were 10-3-1 and they could not run for a good average (11th out of a 14 team league) and their run D were ranked 9th. But their pass offense netted an 8th ranking while the pass D nabbed the top spot. And given the traits of the other teams since the 40s, this kind of team is the norm, not the outlier. The 65 Packer run D did not set up their pass D well, if at all this season.

And that is the last point, unlike Nutz protest, this is not something that happened in the last 10 years. Not has it been in play since the revolutionary rules changes in 1978. It has been happening since before Lombardi.

Now this research isn't perfect. Alone, its use of passer rating is a problem because passer rating misses key things (like sacks and fumbles), double counts completions (or penalizes QBs for drops regardless of fault) and penalizes INTs far too harshly. For details see http://www.advancednflstats.com/2011/08/espns-new-qb-stat.html and http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=9069

But its a nice rebuke to establishing the run type of analysis.

[pbmax]

I can't make it any clearer. I get pissed when we are down 3 in the middle of the second quarter and MM calls 16 straight empty backfield shotgun plays. I think he makes it harder on his OL and puts his team in a position to fail.

You'll get no argument from me over the snipped sentences. But that is a tactical decision that should be grounded in game theory. Its not indicative of needing to run well. At best it might indicate a willingness to run occasionally is tactically sound. The threat of the run being the primary attribute.

[bobblehead]

But these are game theory tactics, not traits of winning teams. Of course a team that always passes will be more predictable. So in that sense, you do need to run, but I think the 2010 Packers show you do not need to be very good to make it work.


.

See, I reject this. We were piss poor running the ball (and not calling many running plays) when Starks emerged. We started running effectively and STILL had to win 4 straight just to get the wildcard. I think we were pretty good (and stubborn) at running in the last 6 or 7 games. We have been good through 2 games so far. I expect that it will be really tough to run on chicago and we will struggle immensely on offense (but I hope I'm wrong).

[mraynrand]

You can't pass to set up the run.

WTF? Of course you can, just like you can run to set up the pass. If it's your strength and you can force the defense out of a standard formation to stop your strength then you can go the other way - but only if you are somewhat competent at it. Packers pass extremely well, and force nickel and dime defenses, so they can gash the defense with draws, screens and checkdowns, just like a running team can play action fake a defense that stacks 8 in the box - but only if they can pass. Difference now versus then is the the rules favor the pass game more than ever. So it's better to be a pass first team that can run OK (NE, Colts, NO, GB) versus a run first team that can pass OK (ATL, Baltimore, Jets).

[mraynrand]

See, I reject this. We were piss poor running the ball (and not calling many running plays) when Starks emerged. We started running effectively and STILL had to win 4 straight just to get the wildcard. I think we were pretty good (and stubborn) at running in the last 6 or 7 games. We have been good through 2 games so far. I expect that it will be really tough to run on chicago and we will struggle immensely on offense (but I hope I'm wrong).

Packer weren't 10-6 because they couldn't run the ball, they were ten and six because they couldn't pass with Rodgers concussed and couldn't rush the passer with Matthews and other defenders injured.

[bobblehead]

Incidentally, since I gamble on NFL I went through and checked the matchups this week for this stat. The teams with a 40 point advantage this week are as follows: (Home teams in caps)

lions +68, CHARGERS +44, cardinals +45, packers +44, steelers +39

Those are the huge differences. Lets see the blowouts commence (for the record I hope this is as strong as it says, I want to win money).

Ok, the good news and bad news. The lions, chargers, and packers all won (steelers just started). I forgot to list the TITANS at +41 and they won as well. I'm going to assume a steelers win. That would be 5 of 6 winners. Of those, only the packers covered the spread. This seems bad for betting purposes (granted, only a one week sample size).

Overall this stat went 8-6 at this point today. The large spreads in this rank fared very well, the closer ones were erratic (go figure).

My actual betting today did good. I bet over in the NE/Buffalo game. I took the vikings and the chiefs (right in the face of the stat). I also played the giants +9 which was against this stat as well.

In the end, towards the end of the season this stat may predict winners, but I stand by my assessment of "no shit, teams that have good QB's and play good defense win more". I still am not convinced it has any bearing on how teams approach game planning. Today I thought the running game was very good for GB. Chicago couldn't get anywhere. GB also passed much better. The better team won, go figure.

[pbmax]

Ok, the good news and bad news. The lions, chargers, and packers all won (steelers just started). I forgot to list the TITANS at +41 and they won as well. I'm going to assume a steelers win. That would be 5 of 6 winners. Of those, only the packers covered the spread. This seems bad for betting purposes (granted, only a one week sample size).

Overall this stat went 8-6 at this point today. The large spreads in this rank fared very well, the closer ones were erratic (go figure).

My actual betting today did good. I bet over in the NE/Buffalo game. I took the vikings and the chiefs (right in the face of the stat). I also played the giants +9 which was against this stat as well.

In the end, towards the end of the season this stat may predict winners, but I stand by my assessment of "no shit, teams that have good QB's and play good defense win more". I still am not convinced it has any bearing on how teams approach game planning. Today I thought the running game was very good for GB. Chicago couldn't get anywhere. GB also passed much better. The better team won, go figure.

This stat is for championship teams only. Which means two things about its predictions. One, it takes much closer to a full season of data to determine who is actually better at both. And 2, very poor teams who fall behind will skew the results if you try to predict ALL games based on it.

[bobblehead]

This stat is for championship teams only. Which means two things about its predictions. One, it takes much closer to a full season of data to determine who is actually better at both. And 2, very poor teams who fall behind will skew the results if you try to predict ALL games based on it.

Actually you are wrong. CHFF even specifically points to ALL games (but I suspect they use the final number and then go back to through the season...to which I again say "duh")

CHFF:
We introduced Passer Rating Differential as a way to statistically define and prove the all-encompassing importance of the passing game in pro football.

Anecdotal experience told us that Passer Rating Differential would be deadly accurate. But now we have a mounting body of evidence.

The Saints topped the indicator in 2009. They won the Super Bowl. The Packers topped the indicator in 2010. They won the Super Bowl, too.

That's two for two, for those of you keeping score at home.

Meanwhile, within a game, teams that posted the higher Passer Rating Differential won nearly 80 percent of all NFL games this year (203-53).

And as a predictor of playoff success, it was nearly flawless: the team with the higher Passer Rating Differential was 10-1. The ony game it failed to identify the winner was in Seattle's shocking wildcard win over New Orleans, an outcome that nobody but the biggest Seahawks rump swab could have anticipated.

The Packers were the perfect passing team this year: No. 1 in forcing Negative Pass Plays, No. 1 in Defensive Passer Rating and No. 1 in Passer Rating Differential. And now they're Super Bowl champs.

[HarveyWallbangers]

See, I reject this. We were piss poor running the ball (and not calling many running plays) when Starks emerged. We started running effectively and STILL had to win 4 straight just to get the wildcard. I think we were pretty good (and stubborn) at running in the last 6 or 7 games. We have been good through 2 games so far. I expect that it will be really tough to run on chicago and we will struggle immensely on offense (but I hope I'm wrong).

I didn't read the whole thread, but we only had to win two straight to get the wild card. With Rodgers out, we lost two straight games to drop to 8-6. We had to win our last two games to finish 10-6 and get the wild card. Probably doesn't matter in your argument, but just wanted to point it out.

[pbmax]

CHFF might be claiming it works at an 80% clip for each game, but the stat its based on is highly variable game to game and is very dependent on the opponent. I would trust it to describe the entire season, but I would be very cautious using it to predict games. In the parlance of Pro Football Reference, its retrodictive (explanatory) but not predictive.

[bobblehead]

. In the parlance of Pro Football Reference, its retrodictive (explanatory) but not predictive.

Thats what I have been saying this entire thread (though not as eloquently)

[bobblehead]

OK, stubborn as I am I went through it again for this week. The big spreads (30 or more) were:

Lions +33, Saints +67, 49ers +32, Redskins +31, Titans +38, Packers +60

The Packers are the only home team with a +30 so this makes them the mortal lock of all time. Bet the 401k on the Packers on the moneyline.

If you use this stat to figure the best teams in the league, the Lions are king at +42, Titans at +34, and Packers at +32. The "dream team" is -16.