Why Passing Beats Running

[maineman209]

And in the same time
Blount = 464 carries, 30.9 carries per receiving target
Gillislee = 148 carries, 8.2 carries per receiving target

So Gillislee is more than 3x as likely to be targeted in the passing game per carry than Blount.

And you are forgetting Burkhead as well.
87 career rushes, 45 receiving targets. 1.93 carries per target. Over 15x as likely to be targeted per carry as blount.

Good point. It's also been a distinctly different offensive system in BUF during Gillislee's tenure - run first (55% running plays), with a far lower net yards per pass attempt than the Pats. So, the question is, how many of Gillislee's tgts were by design and how many were simply dump-offs? Brady rarely does dump-offs to the RB.

I didn't forget about Burkhead, I just think his comp may be more White or Lewis than Blount or Gillislee. Prior to 2016, Burkhead was used primarily as a receiver (25 tgts - 13 carries). Almost 80% of his career carries came in the last 6 games of 2016, 31% of his career carries came in the Bengals' last game of 2016 (a win over the Ratbirds) with 13.5 carries per target.

If McD wants to run a few of Chip Kelly's 2-RB backfield plays, I suspect that Burkhead might be used in combination with White or Lewis more often than Gillislee.

 

[maineman209]

Why is the outcome surprising?

A good QB will average 7.x yards/attempt.
A good RB will average 4.x yards/attempt.

It seems obvious that gaining an extra 3 yards an attempt will lead to a better chance of winning.

And this is especially true when you draw little bubbles that pretty obviously are throwing out the best and worst results. Considering that 60%+ of passes are completed if the bubble represents all plays within say 1 Standard deviation of the mean result you are probably throwing out all interceptions and a good percentage of incompletions (yes yes, also obviously 50 yard tds as well).

So really is it a surprise that neglecting interceptions and incompletions that passing is better than rushing?

Four things can happen when attempting a pass, three of them bad - incompletion, incterception, spilling your beer.

 

[Ring 6]

Agree. Clearly from a statistical standpoint it's silly to run.

But if your QB is getting killed by the blitz or it's a muddy mess then stats are irrelevent when situations and opportunity dictate plays

This is why statistics are dangerous.
These numbers DO NOT prove it's better to run in any situation.

They prove that GIVEN THE OKAY CALLS THAT WERE MADE in all situations they broke down TEANS THAT CALLED A PASS ON THAT SPECIFIC PLAY were marginally more successful.

If you alter play calling to throw more that will change. If teams that have weak passing offenses throw more that will change.

Running the ball is necessary even though it consistently produces less yards on average than throwing.

 

[patfanken]

You can argue about the pros and cons of the study, but the point I want to make is that IF that study IS a true representation of reality in the NFL, it is only true NOW.

The great thing about football is that it is constantly evolving, and clearly the passing game has surpassed the run game both in complexity AND effectiveness.....for now. So as LB's continue to look more and more like SS's and DLmen devolve from 300 pounders into 260lbers, the run game is due to make a comeback and we can see it starting with the emergence of the growing importance of RB's in recent drafts.

You can make a case right here in NE where BB clearly has made upgrading the RB position a priority this year and into the future. Nobody anticipates new trends in the league than Bellichick.

So in the end, whether that study is real or an abuse of stats really is irreleveant because the game is always changing, and that what makes it such a great game.

 

[fightingirish595]

I see 538 trying to reinvent football again. Most of the time you have to run the ball to win unless Tom Brady is the quarterback

 

[SlowGettingUp]

To properly understand these statistics we'd need to know a couple more key numbers - what the expectancies are when the defense guesses run/pass correctly and also when they guess incorrectly. 3rd and long has a lower pass success rate than 2nd and long because defenses pretty much know a pass is coming.

From a game-theoretic aspect, you have to play a mixed strategy - you have to mix up your passes and runs to try to keep your opponent guessing. You do this even if passing is "better" than running. So you'll end up with a pass-heavy strategy of some sort (because the expectation from a pass is higher than from a run in most situations) but you will never end up in a pass-only strategy (unless you are far behind of course).

Any particular game and situation is obviously different than the average - different relative player strengths and matchups, different time, different down and distance and so on. That's why we pay offensive and defensive coordinators the big bucks.

But we still can study trends over time - like the emergence of passing in short distance situations. Used to be whenever you needed 2 yards you went to your big RB - nowadays Tom is just as likely to pass. And nowadays nickel is the new base.

 

[RobertWeathers]

This is why statistics are dangerous.
These numbers DO NOT prove it's better to run in any situation.

They prove that GIVEN THE OKAY CALLS THAT WERE MADE in all situations they broke down TEANS THAT CALLED A PASS ON THAT SPECIFIC PLAY were marginally more successful.

If you alter play calling to throw more that will change. If teams that have weak passing offenses throw more that will change.

Running the ball is necessary even though it consistently produces less yards on average than throwing.

Caveat. As you know, depending on the opponent, pace of the game, weather and score it may not be necessary to "run". Now "run" can be qualified in terms of quantity, yardage, field position, 1st downs or making the 3rd down throw easier, creating fatigue with the DL, play-calling/setting up plays for later, etc..

 

[Ring 6]

Caveat. As you know, depending on the opponent, pace of the game, weather and score it may not be necessary to "run". Now "run" can be qualified in terms of quantity, yardage, field position, 1st downs or making the 3rd down throw easier, creating fatigue with the DL, play-calling/setting up plays for later, etc..

But these statistics are based upon the effectiveness of passing only within the current way the game is played, something like 60/40 pass run.

 

[RobertWeathers]

But these statistics are based upon the effectiveness of passing only within the current way the game is played, something like 60/40 pass run.

...which to your earlier point has limited to zero context and questionable value.

 

[eagle eye]

Stats are for losers, the final score is for winners!!!

 

[patchick]

So at the end of the day this study means nothing. Teams that are great at passing will still predominately pass, teams stacked for the run will ignore the study and run because that's what the team is built to do, and teams that are stuck between are going to suck either way.

I'm going to disagree on this front. Lots of fans still call for a "balanced offense" and get upset with lopsided passing/running snaps. This study demonstrates why the NFL has become a pass-first league. Under the current rules in particular, passing is simply a more effective strategy on most downs.

Of course, that's not to say that the Patriots should mothball their running game. There are a ton of potential reasons to hand off on a given snap. Off the top of my head:

- Situational football (3rd and inches, wanting to run out the clock, etc.)
- Exploiting mismatches
- Reducing predictibility in playcalling and keeping the defense from keying on your passing game
- Wearing down the defensive front seven
- Introducing fakes and misdirection plays

So running plays are an important complement to the passing game, which is the core of the offense and where you expect to pick up the majority of your yardage. (As for teams "built for the run," IMO that's becoming a euphemism for "we don't have a legit franchise QB." It just doesn't make sense to build a run-first offense in 2017 if you have another choice.)

 

[Ring 6]

...which to your earlier point has limited to zero context and questionable value.

My earlier post said you can't apply results obtained with 60/40 pass run mix to different strategies.
In other words it's incorrect to apply those statistics to conclude you should pass 90% or even 70% of the time.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm going to disagree on this front. Lots of fans still call for a "balanced offense" and get upset with lopsided passing/running snaps. This study demonstrates why the NFL has become a pass-first league. Under the current rules in particular, passing is simply a more effective strategy on most downs.

Of course, that's not to say that the Patriots should mothball their running game. There are a ton of potential reasons to hand off on a given snap. Off the top of my head:

- Situational football (3rd and inches, wanting to run out the clock, etc.)
- Exploiting mismatches
- Reducing predictibility in playcalling and keeping the defense from keying on your passing game
- Wearing down the defensive front seven
- Introducing fakes and misdirection plays

So running plays are an important complement to the passing game, which is the core of the offense and where you expect to pick up the majority of your yardage. (As for teams "built for the run," IMO that's becoming a euphemism for "we don't have a legit franchise QB." It just doesn't make sense to build a run-first offense in 2017 if you have another choice.)

This study is a study of the results of running a balanced offense, to the extent offenses are balanced.
It's really incorrect to say that since the 60% of the time you pass is more successful than the 40% you run that your offense would be more effective throwing 80% of the time.
True or not these statistics are not usable under a different context.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

And while we are on the subject of useless/useful statistics - the difference between Pats ranking on yards allowed (17th) and points allowed (2nd):

From 2001-2016, the Patriots rank 2nd in points allowed, but 17th in yards allowed; a difference of 15 ranking spots. • r/Patriots

Some of that (probably a lot) has to do with better starting field position because better special teams and better offense. And some has to do with prevent defense when playing from in front.

 

[RobertWeathers]

And while we are on the subject of useless/useful statistics - the difference between Pats ranking on yards allowed (17th) and points allowed (2nd):

From 2001-2016, the Patriots rank 2nd in points allowed, but 17th in yards allowed; a difference of 15 ranking spots. • r/Patriots

Some of that (probably a lot) has to do with better starting field position because better special teams and better offense. And some has to do with prevent defense when playing from in front.

That and they have had close to a dozen defensive players who have made the Pro Bowl or All Pro teams.

 

[Nehalem]

In total, a quarterback has finished a season with 600-plus pass attempts 43 times. Zero of those quarterbacks have been on Super Bowl-winning teams, and only four have even made a Super Bowl (Peyton Manning in 2013, Brady in 2011, Rich Gannon in 2002, Drew Bledsoe in 1996).

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/12/...-pass-attempts-doesnt-bode-well-for-patriots/

Seems odd that if throwing the ball more that no QB has ever won the Super Bowl when throwing more than 600 passes. And interesting note: In the last 10 years there is one season Brees threw less than 600 passes... 2009 when he won the Super Bowl.

After this was written.
Brady threw 624 passes in 2015, and Pats lost AFCCG. A game where Brady was the Pats leading rusher . And RBs combined for 14 carries for 31 yards.

Whereas in 2016 Brady thew only 432 passes (576 if adjusted for missing 4 games) and the Patriots won the Super Bowl.

 

[patchick]

This study is a study of the results of running a balanced offense, to the extent offenses are balanced.
It's really incorrect to say that since the 60% of the time you pass is more successful than the 40% you run that your offense would be more effective throwing 80% of the time.
True or not these statistics are not usable under a different context.

I don't believe that anybody did say that, did they?

But I'm also not going to assume that the typical pass/run ratio in the NFL is the optimal one. Every analysis I've ever seen of every sort of play-calling decision -- - punting vs. going for it, kicking a field goal first when you're down two scores, etc. -- shows that NFL coaches are systematically over-sensitive to risk.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't believe that anybody did say that, did they?

But I'm also not going to assume that the typical pass/run ratio in the NFL is the optimal one. Every analysis I've ever seen of every sort of play-calling decision -- - punting vs. going for it, kicking a field goal first when you're down two scores, etc. -- shows that NFL coaches are systematically over-sensitive to risk.

That's a different topic but this study is only valid under the conditions that it occurred.
Really the same goes for the others.
You can really look at 26 cases where a team when for 4th and 1 at the 50 and conclude it's the right call all the time because if you start going for it every time it changes the game.

Coaches are conservative for a reason. In the above example while statistically you may end up better in the long run by going for it the consequence of failing can be severe. You can't just use statistic to make those decisions. (Like the old "he averages 4 yards per carry so give it to him 3 times and you'll get a first down).

Statistics are only as good as the scenario they occurred in. My point is that to say passing is more effective in a league with a 60/40 ratio, therefore you should increase the amount you pass is not a valid inclusion if this study.

 

[Ring 6]

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/12/...-pass-attempts-doesnt-bode-well-for-patriots/

Seems odd that if throwing the ball more that no QB has ever won the Super Bowl when throwing more than 600 passes. And interesting note: In the last 10 years there is one season Brees threw less than 600 passes... 2009 when he won the Super Bowl.

After this was written.
Brady threw 624 passes in 2015, and Pats lost AFCCG. A game where Brady was the Pats leading rusher . And RBs combined for 14 carries for 31 yards.

Whereas in 2016 Brady thew only 432 passes (576 if adjusted for missing 4 games) and the Patriots won the Super Bowl.

Correlation vs causation.
Teams trailing pass more, teams leading pass less. not true in ALL games but true in enough games with large leads to mean that statistically teams pass less because they win not that they win because they pass less

 

[patchick]

Coaches are conservative for a reason. In the above example while statistically you may end up better in the long run by going for it the consequence of failing can be severe.

Sorry if we're getting too far afield here, but this is what excessive risk aversion is all about: how heavily you weight minimizing potential negative consequences of a play, as opposed to maximizing chances of winning the game. Those two factors sometimes point toward different decisions.