YoloinOhio Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Good read-- "Offensive Tempo and the Greatly Exaggerated Demise of the Running Game | RotoViz" http://buff.ly/1qK1KfN well done @ChrisTrapasso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 I never bought into the idea that the running game is disappearing. Granted the approach to it these days are different, but the running game will always be a key to winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I don't understand how they can come up with this..... "....and the only plays omitted were sacks, which are neither pass attempts or rush attempts." Unless there has been a fumbled snap(insignificant number), a sack is definitely an attempt to pass the ball and IMO should be added into the stats for this exercise. I doubt it would alter the results but it should have been used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I never bought into the idea that the running game is disappearing. Granted the approach to it these days are different, but the running game will always be a key to winning. The type of play of the running back is going to change. The last few years have been high on shuck and jive type runners that are very athletic. The best athletes weren't playing RB, they were playing DB or WR. I said it two seasons ago if anyone looks it up, the big bashing back who can make holes and defeat tacklers will make a rise in two or three seasons. Well, this season I look to see that be proven true. A result of this will be the reintroduction of RB's who catch out of the backfield similar to what Travis Henry and Thurman Thomas did. RB by committee is going to be an even more practiced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I never bought into the idea that the running game is disappearing. Granted the approach to it these days are different, but the running game will always be a key to winning. Pass to score. Run to win. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I think the last super bowl has something to say about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whites Bay Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 There's a time and place for everything. Any Bills fan that hasn't gone apoplectic watching a Pats* running attack simply choke off the oxygen at the end of a game hasn't been around for the past 14 years. That having been said, if I have to watch another Hackett "Student Body Left" on 1st-and-10 midway through the second quarter, I'm going to hurt someone. Probably my TV again. At the end of it, I guess you have to ask yourself whether it bothers you to have one of the top one or two sets of running backs in the league. Trust me - if the Bills ever GET a lead in the 4th quarter, everyone on this board is going to get religion real f-ing fast. Running the ball will never have looked so good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Years ago, most teams built their offenses around their workhorse RB. Now most teams build their offenses around their QB and run the ball by committee with RB specialists (a between-the-tackles back, an outside back, a short yardage back, a receiving back). In the 1950s, RBs won the Heisman 9 out of 10 years. But QBs have won the Heisman 13 of the past 14 years. While rushing attempts are not down tremendously in the past 15 years, they are down a lot if you look deeper into the past as the focal point of the offense has transitioned from RB to QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Pass to score. Run to win. GO BILLS!!! Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maryland-bills-fan Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 So the % running plays has varied from 43 to 47 %. Big f'ing deal, 80 passes 53 runs. 6% of 153 is 8 plays difference. Change 4 plays from pass to run and that covers it. Big f'ing deal. Two or three big score losses suffered by a pass-happy team could control this stat for the entire season. What would be more interesting would be to see what the percent of run & pass is as a function of the game score at the time. I would expect that a team that was behind would increase the pass %, and the team that was ahead would increase the run %. Also interesting is to profile the different teams by this comparison- some might deviate from the typical performance. Isn't that what the stat boys do in predicting what plays the opponent is likely to run during the course of the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Interesting article. I still like when a team builds around a punishing defense, a pro bowl offensive line, and a strong running game. Seattle did it, and we are working on this type of team. We might not be pretty, but we can win. I can't wait to see Dixon with Summers leading just pound over Wilfork for a goal line touchdown. I look forward to seeing a healthy CJ bounce outside of Glenn to beak off a 40 yd run. And yes, it will be fun for Sammy to make a couple of really play,aker type catches for big chunks of yds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLynchTrain Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) I don't understand how they can come up with this..... "....and the only plays omitted were sacks, which are neither pass attempts or rush attempts." Unless there has been a fumbled snap(insignificant number), a sack is definitely an attempt to pass the ball and IMO should be added into the stats for this exercise. I doubt it would alter the results but it should have been used. Exactly, how could they be so flippant with that? As a whole, the NFL averages almost 1100-1200+ sacks a year - by leaving that stat out that would skew the numbers in favor of the author's argument. Also, one quick look at the table shows the excel formulas aren't adding up correctly - take a look at the numbers from 2001 and see how the Pass % and the Run % are switched, again in favor of the author's argument. EDIT: Also, has anyone actually made the argument that running attacks have been greatly diminished? I think the real argument is the disappearance of the featured running back. I think the guy is taking on the straw man argument here. Edited June 27, 2014 by TheLynchTrain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 (edited) you can't win (the big one) w/o a good balanced run & passing game. Period end of story, fixed it Edited June 29, 2014 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 you can't win (the big one) w/o a good run game. Period end of story, Capital letter start of sentence......The 2011 Giants won (the big one) with the 32nd(last) ranked rushing yards and the 32nd(last) ranked ypa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) Capital letter start of sentence......The 2011 Giants won (the big one) with the 32nd(last) ranked rushing yards and the 32nd(last) ranked ypa. grammar police lose a point for being picky Having the worst rushing yards doesn't mean that they were unbalanced. They ranked 19th in passing w/ 224 ypg. What was the pass to run ratio? per the stats Rushing (Plays-Avg Yards) ................. 411 - 3.5 Passing (Comp-Att-Int-Avg)................. 359 - 589 - 16 - 8.4 Giants were the first team in NFL history to reach the Super Bowl with a negative point differential (minus-6, 394 points scored, 400 points allowed) http://www.nfl.com/t...NYG&seasonType= Edited June 29, 2014 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) grammar police lose a point for being picky Having the worst rushing yards doesn't mean that they were unbalanced. They ranked 19th in passing w/ 224 ypg. What was the pass to run ratio? per the stats Rushing (Plays-Avg Yards) ................. 411 - 3.5 Passing (Comp-Att-Int-Avg)................. 359 - 589 - 16 - 8.4 Giants were the first team in NFL history to reach the Super Bowl with a negative point differential (minus-6, 394 points scored, 400 points allowed) http://www.nfl.com/t...NYG&seasonType= Seriously? You concede the point you made was incorrect by changing your original post to.... you can't win (the big one) w/o a good balanced run & passing game. Period end of story, fixed it ........and then accuse me of being the grammar police? Had the original post said what you later changed it to, I wouldn't have disagreed. I'm not a mind reader. I can't tell that you mean something totally different to what you write. Edited June 29, 2014 by Dibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLbills Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) grammar police lose a point for being picky Lose a point for claiming grammar police... Your post above ended with "Period. End of story,". Hence Dibs' post of "Capital, start of sentence." Just some good ole witty humor... Edited July 1, 2014 by FLbills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I don't understand how they can come up with this..... "....and the only plays omitted were sacks, which are neither pass attempts or rush attempts." Unless there has been a fumbled snap(insignificant number), a sack is definitely an attempt to pass the ball and IMO should be added into the stats for this exercise. I doubt it would alter the results but it should have been used. There you go, Dibs, making sense again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts