Defense wins championships?

[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...w-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.