I hope Mcdaniels sticks with the Run against the Texans

[ralmat55]

The Patriots and Packers have been proving this theory wrong for years. Theories are fine, but they have to survive contact with reality.

So you want to say it's only a theory that an offense has a better chance of succeeding if the defense doesn't know if it is going run or pass on a particular play. Wow! Explain to me how the "Law of the Defense knowing exactly what you're going to do" actually works, again.

You have an incredible ability to recognize an exception to a rule and declare it to be the rule dismissing all evidence to the contrary.

 

[PP2]

Since you can't be bothered to actually look at the games, this is completely useless. Your argument is wrong. It's been demonstrably shown to be wrong, time and again, just by going to the actual play-by-play of games and showing that the numbers don't reflect the claims of the "balance!" people. I, myself, demonstrated that with 2 games in this very thread.

You can't find one single Patriots loss with Brady under center, from 2007 to the present, where the loss was because of the run/pass ratio.

No such game exists.

If you look at the pass/run ratio, the closer it is to 50/50, the more we win. I don't see how much more fundamental you can get than that.

I have tried to simplify, you have complicated things by convolution.

 

[PP2]

The american public school system must be pretty horrendous if you only learn which numbers are greater than others in 5th grade. If you think those numbers tell the whole story, and that calling a higher amount of running plays is, per se, without any contextual analysis needed, a statistically infalible way to win more football games, then I don't know what to tell you, other than you obviously don't understand the game of football all that well.

Once again, look at the win/loss ratio when the Patriots take a knee more than 2 times, it's obvious that's what we should do to win more games. More kneel downs = more wins, that's what the numbers tell us, so it should a foolproof strategy, right?

It is statistically infallible that the more balanced the ratio is the more chance we have to win.

Here's another way to look at it without looking at the math:

Do you or do you not agree that if we run equally as well as we throw, we have a better chance of winning a game?

 

[RodThePat]

So you want to say it's only a theory that an offense has a better chance of succeeding if the defense doesn't know if it is going run or pass on a particular play. Wow! Explain to me how the "Law of the Defense knowing exactly what you're going to do" actually works, again.

You have an incredible ability to recognize an exception to a rule and declare it to be the rule dismissing all evidence to the contrary.

That's not the argument. Nobody here is advocating they go empty backfield on every down. Just that saying "running the ball more = having more success" isn't really accurate, especially not in today's NFL. The vast majority of blowouts and big wins the Patriots have had in recent seasons were accomplished because they were highly effective throwing the football, and then could coast to victory by abusing the running game as the clock winds down. And even when they had huge games rushing, that was mostly because the opponent put their nickel or dime packages on the field on a lot of plays, opening up things for the running game. Any way you look at it, the Patriots have been most successful on offense by throwing the football, and, thus, merely pointing out that they have a better W/L ratio when the amount of running and passing plays is close doesn't tell the whole story, for reasons previously established by many posters here.

Houston's secondary isn't as good as their run defense. Their weakness matches our strength. I'm still waiting for a good explanation as to why we have to throw out what we do best, in favor of doing predominantly what their defense is best at stopping.

 

[RodThePat]

It is statistically infallible that the more balanced the ratio is the more chance we have to win.

Here's another way to look at it without looking at the math:

Do you or do you not agree that if we run equally as well as we throw, we have a better chance of winning a game?

You're throwing 'as well' in the equation, which contradicts your previous statements. The Patriots since 2007 have had the best stretch of offensive efficiency through the air the league has ever seen. So yes, if we could run the ball anywhere near that level, we'd have a better chance of winning football games. But the thing is, we don't. The passing offense is leagues beyond the running offense, and the latter greatly benefits from how teams are scared of the former. If the passing offense was 30% worse, this team would be in dire straits offensively, if the running offense was 30% worse, they absolutely could survive and still be highly productive, as 2007, 2010 and 2011 have shown us.

Fact is, throwing the football is WAY more valuable to this team than running it, and that's how they should look to attack the opponent. If the other team sells out to stop the pass and pratically begs us to run on them, we'll gladly take that, just like we did against Denver and Buffalo, with great success. Otherwise, we should never go into a game thinking "gotta run the ball here, keep that pass/run ratio close". No, you play to your strengths on offense, especially when those strengths directly mirror the opposing defense's weakness, as is the case with Houston. You were arguing that merely by runnng the ball more often, our chances of winning football games would increase. And that's a fallacy.

 

[PP2]

Any way you look at it, the Patriots have been most successful on offense by throwing the football

That is complete fiction. Our playoff records prove that.

 

[RodThePat]

That is complete fiction. Our playoff records prove that.

If you are arguing that the passing offense hasn't been the main driving force behind any success this team has had in the recent years, then you really are completely out of your mind and there's no sense in even arguing. Let me put it this way, if they hadn't been historically productive through the air since 2007, their playoff record in that period would likely be 0-0.

 

[Deus Irae]

So you want to say it's only a theory that an offense has a better chance of succeeding if the defense doesn't know if it is going run or pass on a particular play. Wow! Explain to me how the "Law of the Defense knowing exactly what you're going to do" actually works, again.

You have an incredible ability to recognize an exception to a rule and declare it to be the rule dismissing all evidence to the contrary.

Now you're changing your post. This is what you originally wrote, and the highlighted part is what I referred to:

To me, offensive balance is not really a matter of balancing the numbers but rather balancing the threat in the eyes of a defense. It's not necessary to have an equal number of rushes and passes or an equal amount of yards gained from each. Instead, what is necessary is that an offense can do both well enough and often enough that the opposition defense has to be concerned about defending both components of the offense.

Against good defenses, and I think the Texans have one even with their injuries, it is essential to balance the threat the best you can to keep the defense guessing, and stop them from concentrating on just stopping the run or stopping the pass.

You'll note that your argument is now changed from "essential" to "better chance of succeeding". And, given the years of evidence shown by teams like the Patriots and Packers, and the fact that we're discussing it in the context of the Patriots, calling it an exception to the rule is misleading, at best.

 

[Deus Irae]

If you look at the pass/run ratio, the closer it is to 50/50, the more we win. I don't see how much more fundamental you can get than that.

I have tried to simplify, you have complicated things by convolution.

Again, you continue to confuse correlation and causation. I'm sorry you continue to refuse to educate yourself on this by actually looking at the games, because they are definitive. As I pointed out early, the Broncos playoff game is a classic example:

...The score was 35-7 at the half, and the game was clearly over. What was the run/pass ratio at that time?

2/3
2/5
1/3
2/3
4/4
1/2
1/1
0/5

13:26

And that includes the runs where Hernandez took the ball as a RB.

Denver Broncos at New England Patriots - January 14th, 2012 - Pro-Football-Reference.com

There is only one game where there's even a real issue about why the team should have been running more, and that's the playoff loss to the Jets, but even that one was lost because of unforced errors in the passing game early on, as opposed to being because of a failure to run enough.

 

[lamafist]

Here is a nice (if old) article from the statisticians at FootballOutsiders regarding the question of whether "you win when you run" vs "you run when you win."

The entire article is worth reading, but the most salient finding is that, based on the data from a full season of games by all 32 teams:

The correlation between first quarter rushing attempts and team wins is a measly .171. That means there is almost no connection between running a lot in the first quarter, and winning a lot of games. The correlation between fourth quarter rushing attempts and team wins, on the other hand, is .750. That's a sizeable relationship.

 

[RodThePat]

Here is a nice (if old) article from the statisticians at FootballOutsiders regarding the question of whether "you win when you run" vs "you run when you win."

The entire article is worth reading, but the most salient finding is that, based on the data from a full season of games by all 32 teams:

Gee, imagine that ! Great contribution to the thread! I wonder now if the "just look at the numbers!" argument will still be used with a straight face.

 

[Deus Irae]

Gee, imagine that ! Great contribution to the thread! I wonder now if the "just look at the numbers!" argument will still be used with a straight face.

Using the logic of the "balance" crowd, in that 2010 loss to the Ravens, had the Patriots just run the ball instead of making the last 12 passes when the game was 33-14 and there was 10 minutes to go in the game, that would have been a Patriots victory.

That should tell them all they need to know about their argument. The fact that it doesn't just shows that their position is based upon emotion and kneejerk reactionism rather than facts, logic and reason.

 

[lamafist]

So you want to say it's only a theory that an offense has a better chance of succeeding if the defense doesn't know if it is going run or pass on a particular play. Wow! Explain to me how the "Law of the Defense knowing exactly what you're going to do" actually works, again.

You have an incredible ability to recognize an exception to a rule and declare it to be the rule dismissing all evidence to the contrary.

Obviously there is an advantage to be had by not being predictable. That said, it's also a fact that passing has a significantly higher yield of yards gained per play. So the question is, how much running does a team need to do in order to prevent diminishing returns on passing plays due to predictability?

Statistician Brian Burke has been looking into run/pass balance for years now, and has some great articles on various aspects of the issue. The two most fundamental to this question are:

Offenses Run Too Often On 1st Down
and
Run-Pass Imbalance on 2nd and 3rd Downs

An incredibly reductive summary of these studies is essentially that teams run too much on 1st and 2nd downs, but pass too much on 3rd and short.

Now, regarding the greater question about the relative correlation of passing and running to winning:
Passing=Winning

 

[mayoclinic]

From Brian Billick at Fox Sports:

Wednesday's with Billick: How important is it to run the football in a passing league? - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

Hmm. If Billick if favoring run-pass balance, than I'm going to convert to Deus' side and say it must have nothing to do with it.

Seriously, one good thing from Billick's article: I think people may be confusing balance with equality. I'm not preaching equality of both, or fixed ratios, or throwout out situation specific planning. But while it may be true that "rushing yardage is an overrated stat, largely shaped by circumstance", it's also true that "there’s hardly a coach alive who doesn’t preach the importance of running the ball and stopping the run, because the ability to do those two things — if not well, then at least credibly — gives you so many more options in the rest of your attack and defense".

 

[PP2]

You're throwing 'as well' in the equation, which contradicts your previous statements. The Patriots since 2007 have had the best stretch of offensive efficiency through the air the league has ever seen. So yes, if we could run the ball anywhere near that level, we'd have a better chance of winning football games. But the thing is, we don't. The passing offense is leagues beyond the running offense, and the latter greatly benefits from how teams are scared of the former. If the passing offense was 30% worse, this team would be in dire straits offensively, if the running offense was 30% worse, they absolutely could survive and still be highly productive, as 2007, 2010 and 2011 have shown us.

Fact is, throwing the football is WAY more valuable to this team than running it, and that's how they should look to attack the opponent. If the other team sells out to stop the pass and pratically begs us to run on them, we'll gladly take that, just like we did against Denver and Buffalo, with great success. Otherwise, we should never go into a game thinking "gotta run the ball here, keep that pass/run ratio close". No, you play to your strengths on offense, especially when those strengths directly mirror the opposing defense's weakness, as is the case with Houston. You were arguing that merely by runnng the ball more often, our chances of winning football games would increase. And that's a fallacy.

1) Then how come we haven't had postseason success since 2004?

2) You play to your strength by presenting multiple threats. The defense doesn't continually blitz or rush against the run.

I am not telling the story here, the numbers are. The hard numbers show that when our pass/run ratio is closer to 50/50 the more we have won, that's it. If that determination were made on 1 or 2 games, then that's certainly open to interpretation, but we're talking about all the playoff games since '07.

 

[PP2]

If you are arguing that the passing offense hasn't been the main driving force behind any success this team has had in the recent years, then you really are completely out of your mind and there's no sense in even arguing. Let me put it this way, if they hadn't been historically productive through the air since 2007, their playoff record in that period would likely be 0-0.

I am not arguing that passing offense isn't the success, I am arguing that a balanced approach on offense presents the best chance of winning.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Now, regarding the greater question about the relative correlation of passing and running to winning:
Passing=Winning

That article relates to efficiency not shear volume. I think everyone is in agreement that an efficient passing game is the key to victory in the NFL, hence the premium value placed on QBs. A key factor in most people's arguments for maintaining a solid P/R is that it helps the passing game be more efficient by forcing teams to play closer to the line, play heavier personnel, and bite on the PA. I'd be interested to see how passing efficiency relates to per game attempts.

 

[PP2]

Again, you continue to confuse correlation and causation. I'm sorry you continue to refuse to educate yourself on this by actually looking at the games, because they are definitive.

So you are disagreeing that a balanced offense is the best approach to winning?

 

[Deus Irae]

From Brian Billick at Fox Sports:

Wednesday's with Billick: How important is it to run the football in a passing league? - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

Hmm. If Billick if favoring run-pass balance, than I'm going to convert to Deus' side and say it must have nothing to do with it.

Seriously, one good thing from Billick's article: I think people may be confusing balance with equality. I'm not preaching equality of both, or fixed ratios, or throwout out situation specific planning. But while it may be true that "rushing yardage is an overrated stat, largely shaped by circumstance", it's also true that "there’s hardly a coach alive who doesn’t preach the importance of running the ball and stopping the run, because the ability to do those two things — if not well, then at least credibly — gives you so many more options in the rest of your attack and defense".

Of course, the diminished need for a powerful running game has been well documented in recent years. Of the past four Super Bowl champions, only New Orleans was a top 10 rushing team the year they won it all. In fact, the others were not simply mediocre — they were more like dreadful: the Giants ranking last in the NFL in rushing yards in 2011, Green Bay ranking 24th in 2010 and even the Pittsburgh Steelers finishing 23rd in the league in rushing in 2008.

Even in the case of the Saints, the running game was a byproduct of the prolific passing attack; with future Hall of Fame quarterback Drew Brees at the helm, the rushing game was just an adjunct to the offense that allowed them to close out games once Brees had passed them into a big lead.

Note the bolded. That's the point we're trying to get across here. It's not been about balance, and Billick is acknowledging that.

 

[Deus Irae]

So you are disagreeing that a balanced offense is the best approach to winning?

Of course I am, if by "balanced offense" you mean some predetermined percentage of snaps hovering somewhere near 50/50.

But you're trying to shift the discussion again.

Causation v. correlation

That's where you've gone off the rails, time and again.