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!!

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.

.