Read This, Be Dumber: Running Means Winning

[pbmax]

Mike Jurecki @mikejurecki
A tough, reliable running game allows an offense to command a game’s pace. In the majority of contests, it can also control the game’s result. #NFL100

In 2018, NFL teams with a 100-yard rusher posted a 80-26-1 record for a .749 winning percentage. The analytics peeps

https://twitter.com/mikejurecki/status/1163911714007474176

[pbmax]

In other news, teams that kneel twice in the second half win nearly 100% of their games.

[mraynrand]

In other news, teams that kneel twice in the second half win nearly 100% of their games.

BRING BLACK KAEPERNICK!!

[pbmax]

I sincerely believe that coaches look at charts like this and think they are familiar with the analytics of game situations. I think mostly they have moved beyond establish the run, but that is mainly because most have seen their teams get ahead by 14 points without regard to establishing any one particular play, or have been on the opposite side of the score with an anemic offense.

(Its not wholly dead, witness the Titans exotic smash mouth or the Jaguars run to the AFC Championship game)

You have to threaten a defense across the board and get matchups you can win. It doesn't matter if its a run or pass, though on average, passing is 2 yard per play more efficient. And this is why I hope M4 and Rodgers truly merge their ideas. Because play action is a nice design, but you can counter a single sign with tape and time (see Patriots beating the Rams). But its hard to defend a team that can threaten to run and pass like the Marino Dolphins out of the same sets.

[RashanGary]

PB, analytics aside, honestly, just knowing football for 30+ years for me and probably 50 for you.... do you seriously not think a good running game opens up the offense? It slows down pass rush, brings linebackers and safeties up. It’s a big deal, man.

[texaspackerbacker]

All of that fails to take into account personnel. We have the GOAT QB, decent receivers, and a sorry-assed O Line. 'Nuf said.

[RashanGary]

All of that fails to take into account personnel. We have the GOAT QB, decent receivers, and a sorry-assed O Line. 'Nuf said.

Can still make Aaron look even better tho. No reason to make it hard on him.

[Upnorth]

To me this is 'settled science '. Both running and passing are important, and every team wants to win. In the age of analytics it has become easier to spot and analyze trends. Since everyone is trying to win and tends to copy what creates success for teams, by looking at the run - pass ratio it is clear which game aspect is more critical to success. Now factor in the rules changes that makes for a more efficient passing game and you have a data driven answer with a very important explanation as to why it has such a high bearing on success.

The run game is important, but if you want to be a winning team and don't have the horses to be good in both aspects you better pray you are a good passing team.

[mraynrand]

It's absurd to claim the Packers have a bad O-line. I would argue it's indisputably been developed to be a pass pro tilted O-line (even Turner is Bison LT turned guard, like all other previous Packer guards ). Both Cole Madison and Jenkins were outstanding in pass pro in college. Untested and so-so as run blockers. But so what? It's a passing league. If the Packers can run enough to keep teams off balance and get the occasional short yardage pickup or goal line score, the line will be outstanding at doing what it needs to do best - protect the passer. What I'm not sure of is whether the current line can run outside zone. Maybe that's just a bad fit for this group, but they've only played a quarter against perhaps the best defense in the league, so who knows? We'll know real fast against Chicago, to be sure.

[pbmax]

PB, analytics aside, honestly, just knowing football for 30+ years for me and probably 50 for you.... do you seriously not think a good running game opens up the offense? It slows down pass rush, brings linebackers and safeties up. It’s a big deal, man.

50? Sure I had an NFL uniform for Christmas when I was 4 years old, but I wasn't watching really watching football then.

A good running game is important. A good passing game is more important (its more efficient overall). Calling plays that succeed in a given situation (down and distance, your talents, defensive personnel, scheme) is more important that either alone. You need first downs to possess the ball and score.

You have to be good at something on offense to win (not hovering around .500 kind of winning). But it doesn't matter which facet of the game you can excel in if you can take advantage of matchups.

All the things you describe, slowing a pass rush, getting LBs and safeties closer to the LOS are secondary effects. And each of them is under the Defense's control. You have to succeed at something to get a defense to react. If they are reacting to your running game, great, but the running choice isn't the important part. Achieving first downs through whatever means necessary is the important part.

Guess what happens when you can pass like the Dickens? Defenses throw LBs and DL out of the game. They INVITE you to run! Isn't passing well a big deal then? Doesn't passing set up the run?

Establish the run is a one sized fits all approach that doesn't bear itself out in results. But its especially egregious for two reasons:

1. Teams don't win more when they run more early in the game.
2. Teams in the OP list that win game with big rushing games tend to do a lot of rushing late to bleed clock. They got the lead with far more imaginative play calls. Watch any Cowboys game with Tony Dorsett.

The other thing to remember is that with completion percentages creeping toward 70%, running versus passing late to bleed clock doesn't have the same benefit anymore. In the 70s, completion percentages were closer to 50%.

McCarthy actually said he had a number of runs he wanted to get to in the game versus the Seahawks in 2014. Imagine that. Not certain play calls, but a certain number of runs. Imagine what a sputtering offense does to that game plan. Without long drives and a lot of plays, your running goal crowds out your passing game. When the run plays cannot work, you can't bleed as much clock as you would like. you aren't scoring. You literally are setting yourself up for a comeback defeat.

I guarantee you M3 asked his stats guy to list the teams that won as underdogs on the road deep in the playoffs. And I'd bet money that list had a lot of teams that ran 22 times in the game.

[pbmax]

The best called, take advantage of the defense game I have seen is either Holmgren versus the 49ers in the first non-wild card playoff game I witnessed for the Packers (1994?). Or, Sherman versus the Ravens Super Bowl winning D in 2001, when he ran versus their pass rushers and passed versus their run stoppers.

[Patler]

The best called, take advantage of the defense game I have seen is either Holmgren versus the 49ers in the first non-wild card playoff game I witnessed for the Packers (1994?). Or, Sherman versus the Ravens Super Bowl winning D in 2001, when he ran versus their pass rushers and passed versus their run stoppers.

Sherman's game against the Ravens, hands down. That was an amazing game, if you compare the result to the expectations going in.

[mraynrand]

Sherman's game against the Ravens, hands down. That was an amazing game, if you compare the result to the expectations going in.

Yep, that was a great one. Shermy piled up three straight wins over defending SB champs, and they were all gems (Baltimore, NE, Tampa Bay)

[Radagast]

Those that speak out against a running attack that opponents must respect won't admit it , but they find it too slow and not sexy. The fact that small gains on the ground are not as thrilling as big pass plays does not satisfy their need for instant gratification.

They don't like to acknowledge that a successful running game gives a time of possession advantage while denying the opposition the football. This strategy works best with a lead and lessens the chance of a turnover.

Also, as has already been noted, even an average running attack requires defenses to respect the run. As a result, rushing the passer on every down is reduced.

[pbmax]

Those that speak out against a running attack that opponents must respect won't admit it , but they find it too slow and not sexy. The fact that small gains on the ground are not as thrilling as big pass plays does not satisfy their need for instant gratification.

They don't like to acknowledge that a successful running game gives a time of possession advantage while denying the opposition the football. This strategy works best with a lead and lessens the chance of a turnover.

Also, as has already been noted, even an average running attack requires defenses to respect the run. As a result, rushing the passer on every down is reduced.

How do you propose to get the lead mister? Even your argument for respecting the run game includes the caveat, "helps to have the lead".