Because they want to shorten the game. If this were true, there would be evidence that running the ball efficiently correlates with passing efficiently. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
But X and Y in this case don't have a positive correlation. Passing efficiency does not correlate with running efficiency. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
X and Y are independent in that example, no correlation needed. But you're right that run and pass efficiency are weakly correlated (for 2013 it was 0.26 and for 2014 it was 0.13, which are positive but real low). In any case, I was just making a theoretical argument. Not sure if there's any good test in practice to settle this issue. You'd basically have to separate events into two categories: 1) due only to run efficiency, and 2) due to both run and pass efficiency, and then apply the logic I described. You'd have to prove that those events due only to run efficiency actually hurt the team, while events due to both helped the team. Like I said, hard to do in practice.
So why are run and pass efficiency so weakly correlated? Why doesn't an efficient run game make a passing game better? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Well, technically it could per the argument I gave, but yeah normally you'd expect a decent (positive) correlation. Hey, I'm not arguing run efficiency enables pass efficiency in a serious way (or that it doesn't). I'm just adding stats/logic where I can in the debate.
C-brad likes ooooooooh yeahhhh, me likey a lot..I want more I want more when I really like something I want more.. C-brad is the sites official stat junkie imo....in a good way.
In lamens terms it sounds like space advantages..when pass game is good, there more space to run, and vice versa..but we know this..for ages..
Could the test be play action passes? If defenses are selling out to stop the run then play action passes should be more effective for those teams.
I want to create a new account just to thank this post again. A balanced offense is absolutely not necessary. Packers and Patriots have won a lot lately without great running games. Think of the past 10 superbowl teams. How many running backs do you think of? How many QBs? The one team with a decent run game was the Seahawks and in 2013 they weren't even top 10 in efficiency. Passer rating differential (pass efficiently on offense, stop thepass on defense) is the greatest correlation with winning it all. And it's very consistent year in, year out. The team that wins the passer rating differential wins the game 80% of the time.
My thoughts on reading the third article. 1) It misses the importance of time management. In football the two variables you control with regards to winning are yards (easy to measure in yards/attempt made and allowed) but also time. Easy examples of time management are seen in the last 2 minutes teams running out the clock if they have a lead, or trying to stop the clock when they are trying to mount a comeback. But good time management starts way earlier than the last 2 or 4 minutes, so analyzing football game theory purely in terms of yards (for example turnovers are often equated to -45 yards of field position and TDs are equated to +20 yards of field position) is incomplete. This is one area where I believe Bill Belichek moves the needle for his teams is his superiority in time management over other NFL coaches. 2) It doesn't look at variance. If QB X has 7.5 y/a and 3.0 yards SD (low% long baller like Terry Bradshaw) and QB Y has 7.5 y/a but a 0.5 yards SD (high percentage WCO QB like Joe Montana), which is better? If you are examining it through the game theory lense then variance in outcomes is supremely important to the decision making process.
You're not supporting your claim. You are just making a declaration then crying when you're called out on the absurdity of it. He doesn't need to tell you that teams run the effing ball besides when they have the lead, because it happens all the time. He doesn't need to tell you that most coaches preach the necessity of a balanced offense. You are literally interpreting the stats incorrectly and want me to argue that stance with more stats. The simple fact of the matter is that based on common goddamned sense and a simple basic knowledge of the game, what you're saying is just wrong. I'm not attacking you. I'm telling you, you are wrong. The reason you are wrong is because you're coming at this from the wrong direction. But also, knowing things you've said on this site and other's in the past (cough fanhell), I also know you believe you have some sort of responsibility to generate discussion for the good of the site and are willing to take absurd views to achieve that. Lo and behold, you come on here preaching that run game is only used to run out the clock and that Thill's passing is so bad that all you can do is force him to pass more. Those are simply absurd. As far as what you said about me and res, well those are also a lie or at least missing huge pieces of info. We don't make off topic posts anymore than the rabble makes. We don't attack other posters any more than they attack us. We have legit arguments that get out of hand dismissed by you and your ilk. Arguments that fit logically and with common football knowledge, unlike the one you're providing now where you're basically saying water is dry and want someone to statistically prove it isn't, when logic and common sense do that just fine. The other guys make outlandish claims, those claims get destroyed, and then they get butthurt. You, OTOH, make up ridiculous stances to create discussion, then pretend you're upset when it does just that. But I get it, I'm the monster, so fine....I'll do with you like I've taken the initiative to do with a few others and I won't comment on your posts and you won't comment on mine. You clearly don't want people to call you out when you're being purposely being argumentative and I don't want to fight an ignorant argument with stats when common sense will do the job (which you obviously can't handle). So deal?
Going back as far as 2006, the Patriots have run the ball petty consistently around 450-460 times a season. That's about 150 more than the Dolphins did this year, or, about half a season's worth more than the Dolphins. Their highest I saw was like 531 one year, and their lowest was 383, which was this year. It's not really accurate to say that the Patriots don't run the ball. They've always been far more balanced than people think.
Again. This is assuming he has never had good protection when he did not have a healthy OL (I saw good protection last year vs Balt/NYG). I don't miss a snap of Miami Dolphins football, I've seen him play well with subpar protection and I've seen him struggle when protected well.
Its very simple. The defense has to guess what the offense is going to do. First they have to guess if its going to be a pass or run. Then from there, they have to guess what the play is going to entail. Where is the ball going? Where is the Player X going? Who is blocking? Who is running a route? So on and so forth. We basically told defenses last year, "you don't have to guess if we're going to run or pass, cause we're gonna pass it". Then we told them, by our formation, where they could expect the ball to go and what routes were going to be run. These are things that happen when you don't run and when you can't audible. Stats don't show these things, because stats aren't all encompassing magic formulas. Its ignorant to think well timed running plays don't help the passing game by keeping the defense honest. Its ridiculous to think that teams we play twice a year with good defensive coaches can't decipher formations and plays and build a gameplan around that knowing the QB can't audible out of it. And finally, if stats are so perfect, then please, for the billionth time, someone please list for me the QBs that have thrived with the following variables: abandoned running game, not allowed to audible & a horrible oline.
I'd wager if you looked all the game stats up you would find that a high % of NE's running plays will be with the game already in hand.
It's assuming nothing. When he had his starters on his oline, he played much different than when he's had backups. You simply saying "He had good protection" is pretty meaningless. Also, I see you routinely point to the Ravens game as evidence that Tannehill doesn't play better with good protection. But that's one game. Rafael gave a seven game sample, where Tannehill had his starting oline, and played to a 107 average.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/10/the...kind-of-football-and-nfl-teams-cant-defend-it Good article on how the Patriots used the power run game to set up the pass when destroying the Dolphins last season.
You can say that about every QB. I can pick out games where Marino was bad. They all struggle at times, but on average when his OL was healthy Tannehill put up an average rating that would be good for about third best in the league. I'm pretty sure most of us here can say see we've seen every snap. I certainly can. The fact of the matter is that Tannehill performs considerably better when he has better protection. This is not just logically expected, it's supported objectively. Short of just being stubborn or a troll there's no logical reason to argue against this fact.
Did we waste a draft choice on the top olineman? I ask because a lot of people believe that tannehills play isn't affected by a solid run game or by providing protection. If that's the case then we wasted a pick there. Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I provided data that shows there to be zero correlation between rushing efficiency and passing efficiency. You can also do the bare minimum research and find plenty of information debunking this: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/establishment-clause https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-nfl-teams-make-and-win-in-the-playoffs/ You have provided: Which can be interpreted as outdated myths and platitudes. I say outdated, because the unimportance of rushing the football has been publicized for over 10 years now. This isn't even a new phenomena. How about you actually prove it? You've basically summarized how intelligent debate should work? If there is a debate in the science forum pertaining to if/why water is wet, then I would expect someone there to do the bare minimum expected research and support their argument.
What makes that article good? They identified what occurred (the Patriots running). Again, if 'the run game set up the pass', then there would be some type of statistical relationship between running well and passing well. A more accurate storyline would be 'Patriots Use Run Game to Keep Clock Running'. The relationship between running the ball and keeping the clock running is one that can be proven.
Yes DJ.. that's actually a nice succinct way of putting it. Good idea! Yeah, in general it would be nice to have more detail about what type of play was called. Not even play-by-play goes into that level of detail. But who am I to complain. I've only written programs to parse pro-football-focus csv files at the most basic level (import columns/rows of data, separate by condition, then compare). I haven't even gotten to comparing by team record when two teams play (this isn't my fault.. it's pro-football-focus's fault. They don't provide that info for the opponent so I'd have to parse multiple separate files each time I do any analysis. Doable, but requires more programming time). And of course the big whammy of parsing play-by-play I haven't done. Who knows.. maybe someday!
Did you read the article? The power run set up the pass, they didn't use it to simply "run clock." But, yeah, I guess you're right, and NFL coaches are idiots who don't understand that they don't need to run the ball until late in the fourth when they have a lead.
There isn't much raw data available, but there has been research on this: http://www.footballnation.com/content/nfl-balance-the-most-effective-offenses-since-1970/23311/ Based on that data, rushing efficiency actually has no impact on efficiency of play action passes. This obviously contradicts the theory that teams running the ball creates some type of advantage for the passing game.
Yes, I read the article. They cited a relationship, but didn't actually prove that relationship exists. Having the clock run is beneficial throughout the game, not just the fourth quarter. Either way, there isn't really a correlation between rushing attempts in the first quarter and winning. Why do you believe that is the case?
I never said there was a correlation between first quarter rushing and wins. I am questioning your belief that a balanced offense doesn't provide a benefit to the passing game. If you never run, it makes it very easy for the defense to defend the offense. I also never said it wasn't beneficial to run clock throughout the game.
Right, and so far we haven't been able to find any evidence that a balanced offense leads to improved passing. We have found evidence that having a lead results in having a balanced offense. Teams are more likely to run with a lead in the fourth quarter than the first, which is why looking to first quarter balance is useful in identifying causation.
Just want to point out that while this may seem impressive, I think it's trivial. Passer rating includes passing TD's, so passer rating differential includes the point differentials in all passing TD's. I'd bet that the correlation of point differential due to passing plays with winning is just about that high. This btw is one reason I'm partial to using YPA instead of passer rating, because YPA measures efficiency but doesn't include points. I mean.. nothing correlates more with winning than point differential
Wait, your link also shows correlation between play action YPA and passing YPA at 0.62! That's actually evidence for the hypothesis running the ball (or acting like you'll run) helps the passing game. So I think it's not clear cut here. You're certainly right about the direct correlation with run efficiency being low being evidence against.
They could also be things that happen when you don't run enough because you audible out of the run too much and in the wrong situations. Like Tannehill did in the Jets OT game, audibling from a run to a pass when we we already in field goal range for the win, and not just a pass but a deep pass. Or the time he audibled from a run to a pass with the lead at the end of the Bills game on the infamous Mario Williams sack/strip/turnover. Just because you put the decision in another persons hands doesn't mean all decisions from then on will be correct. The decisions might actually get worse.
I don't agree with that interpretation. The teams that are good at passing, are good at it regardless of PA or not.
