The Argument For Passing More

[MadScientist]

Re: The Argument For Passing More

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!!

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.