Debunking An NFL Myth

[RamDez]

Debunking An NFL Myth



By Barry Waller

Gridiron Gateway





It’s something NFL fans hear constantly. Right now it seems to be on the lips of every Rams fan and those who cover the NFL. In fact, in may be the “first commandment” of the football bible. One even hears head football coaches reciting the age-old adage when discussing football strategy. Wouldn’t it seem like someone, at some time, should actually take a bit of time to prove that “Running the football helps your defense by keeping them off the field, and running the clock.”



I guess, like all too many long held beliefs, people simply believe because so many people say it over and over and over. One thing I love most about writing my opinions on NFL football is that I have the burning desire to hold such tenets up to the light. This one falls flat on its face.



The NFL has changed drastically in the last 35 years, since the AFL-NFL merger brought the idea of high scoring offenses into a league that stubbornly clinged to their old ways, and that old imperative about the ground game.



Sid Gillman and his San Diego Chargers were employing an offensive machine in 1968 that was years ahead of its time, one that has flowed through Bill Walsh, Don Coryell, and Dick Vermeil; to Sam Wyche, Hank Stram, Ernie Zampese, Norv Turner, and Joe Gibbs; and finally to Steve Marriucci, Mike Martz, Mike Shanahan, Mike Holmgren, and Andy Reid, as well as hundreds of other college and professional coaches.



Gillman’s scheme has mutated many different ways as it branches off the trunk of his coaching “family tree”, but the pass patterns, and the philosophy that accurate short passing is better than a running attack, are alive and well. Once old school coaches like Vince Lombardi, George Halas, George Allen, and the rest of their peers were history, unable to win against the new pass-happy NFL offenses, all the NFL organizations upgraded their playbooks to the modern game.



The NFL helped the change by amending rule after rule to make the passing game a better option, even a far more advantageous one. The advent of a national TV deal now worth billions made for a good reason for the league to ignore the caterwauling of NFL “purists” whining about messing up the game, and remake their game. It was commissioner Pete Rozelle’s vision, and that Chargers team that Rozelle, then Rams GM, saw plenty of when they were in Los Angeles, influenced it greatly.



Yet, now, so many years later, NFL fans and analysts are still not convinced that teams should not return to the days of Lombardi to win consistently, even with the rule changes that include when the game clock starts and stops.



Players no longer play both ways, or even every play on one side of the ball, which along with frequent TV timeouts greatly reduces the fatigue element of the game. In these days when 70% completion rates are becoming commonplace, the numbers simply do not support the popular outcry against a team passing 75% of the snaps.



When examining the five playoff teams from 2003 that feature the run the most, and the five playoff clubs that fill the ball with footballs, the numbers should at least make fans re-examine their own stubbornly held beliefs like the NFL has done.



Now, if running the football is supposed to “keep the defense” off the field, how can we quantify that opinion? How about the average time of possession for these top echelon teams?



The Ravens, Broncos, Panthers, Packers, and Cowboys were the only playoff clubs that ran more than they passed, mostly because they either had great runners and offensive lines, or lousy passers, and also play outdoors. The Ravens led the way, rushing 137 times more than they passed in 2003. Those teams averaged 31:00 on offense last year.



The Rams, Colts, Chiefs, Seahawks, and Eagles threw a total of 530 more times than they ran last year, yet their time of possession was still 29:48, a negligible difference from those clubs with top ground games.



If wide-open passing teams are more “high risk”, as everyone says, why were those five run-first teams were –10 in turnover differential, while the five air attacks finished +36, and were more adept at taking the ball away, which they made more likely by taking big early leads with their aggressive approach. That’s when the other team has to take chances to come back.



What about number of plays a team’s defense has to defend, possibly a better indication of “keeping the defense off the field”?



The five rushing offenses put their defense on the field for an average of 58.8 offensive plays per game by their opponents. That number for the five passing offenses is 60.9. Is it worth going against what your team does best, a strategy with a huge upside when the team executes well early, to keep your defense on the bench for 2 plays?



The running teams ran an average of one more play per game on offense than the passing teams, again proof that its time to debunk a tired old excuse that seemingly creeps out of Lombardi’s grave year after year.



The five passing oriented teams averaged 25 offensive points per game (returns not counted), while the five rushing oriented teams scored at only a 21 point clip on offense.



The teams “keeping their defenses off the field” did allow fewer points, with a 16.6 average per game. However, is that a big enough difference from the 18.5 those pass-crazy clubs allowed in 2003 to justify all the fervor? Three of those passing teams play indoors, which may be more of the reason for even that small difference than anything about play calling.



Those playoff teams with the highest percentage of passing to rushing plays finished with a point differential over two points per game higher than the other quintet, 6.5 to 4.4. The five passing teams also had eight more regular season wins than the other five clubs, 59 to 51.



I think a new more valid commandment should replace that sad old cliché about the value of the ground game in the NFL. It would say, “The best offense is to do what you do best as a team to score the most points, and you should do everything possible when building a team to make passing what you do best as soon as possible.”



It would also say that coaches should value game planning, and go with what looks to work on particular team, which by the way has nothing to do with their NFL rank after two games. It seems to me that Mike Martz has said exactly that over and over, to the point where he lost it a bit Monday when that same mantra started at Rams Park among the assembled media.



Martz is now getting his usual bashing from the national media, except a few who have coached or played the game.



No doubt it will be next to impossible to erase what the proof says is a wrong idea from the rote memories of the media and fans, and no doubt their response to this would be that “numbers are misleading”, compared to………… well nothing except what everyone has been saying for 50 years without a shred of hard evidence. People no longer accept that stuff in real life, so why are they so willing to swallow it when it comes to the NFL?



Folks, this ain’t your grandpa’s NFL, and it’s time to wise up, and maybe actually take a hard look at facts before spouting off on the Monday AM radio shows.

[Nick]

Pretty good article..

[HUbison]

Nice history lesson, Barry. It has absolutely nothing to do with the 2004 Rams, but nice history lesson still the same.

Originally Posted by Barry

The Ravens, Broncos, Panthers, Packers, and Cowboys were the only playoff clubs that ran more than they passed, mostly because they either had great runners and offensive lines, or lousy passers, and also play outdoors.

You've already missed the point, Barry. As you say, these teams all ran MORE than they passed last season. You go on to say how several of their stats are worse than top passing teams. And to that I say, of course they're worse off. Nobody is arguing that our offense should consist of passing on less than half of our downs. That would be complete nonsense and would stall our high-octane offense.

An offense will be just as predictable by passing less than half as it is when you pass on 80% of the downs as we're doing now.

Maybe you're confused by the term "balanced". A balanced offense is not a 50/50 split between pass and run. In fact, I would say that a 50/50 split is very much out of balance in today's NFL. And the teams you mentioned that run more than pass are very much out of "balance". But then again so are we with our 80/20.

What's so wrong with say 60/40 or even 65/35. Shouldn't we at least make opposing defenses think we might, possibly, run now and then? Can't you at least see that a more "balanced" offense would, in fact, open up the passing game to bigger gains.

Barry, I'm sure you deal with fans that talk off the top of their head and say things like we should be running more than half the time, but we both know that's not the solution. Just as passing 80% of the time is not the solution either, which should be evident by watching the Saints drop 7 guys into coverage, begging us to run. If our 5 or 6 blockers can't stop their 4, then we've got bigger problems anyway. However, we will never know unless we at least attempt to establish a running game.

[AvengerRam]

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Barry's analysis is far too selective, and really proves nothing.

The fact that running the ball eats clock is undeniable. After most running plays (unless the runner goes out of bounds) the clock runs. Passing plays, on the other hand, often stop the clock (incompletions, sideline patterns). Duh.

If you want to see how clear this issue is, here's a simple, and much better analysis:

These are the Rams statistics since 1999 showing percentage of running plays to points scored:

% Rushing Attempts/Points

1999: 44.8%/32.9 ppg.
2000: 41.8%/33.8 ppg.
2001: 42.l7%/ 31.4 ppg.
2002: 35.1%/19.8 ppg.
2003: 40.7%/27.9 ppg.
2004: 34.5%/19.7 ppg.

So, as you can see, there is almost a direct correlation of % running plays to points scored, and every year that the Rams went below 40% on running plays, their scoring average dropped significantly.

Those are the facts, folks.

[Yodude]

Hey AV, nice job debunking the Debunking of an NFL Myth.

And there's another point to this balanced offense discussion that Barry does not address. The Rams are tied for third from the bottom in total sacks allowed by the offensive line. If we don't start running the ball more, Bulger is going to get destroyed before the half-way point of the season.

[viper]

All good points guys...I agree 100%. AV I was suprised to see us with such a high rushing ratio in TGSOT years...good stuff, thanks. HUBison you are right on. Yodude, I hadn't thought much about the sacks...an excellent point!

Go Rams!!!

[Nick]

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

Those are the facts, folks.

And again, we shouldn't misconstrue those facts into thinking they represent something they aren't.

When you find stats that separate the clock-eating latter game running drives that take place after we've established a significant lead from the true balanced gameplans that use both rush and pass to achieve points and wins, come find me.

[AvengerRam]

I don't claim that there are not additional variables that factor into this pattern.

However, given that the statistical sample is 5+ years, and the pattern is so clear, I think it would be hard to take the position that there is not some meaningful correlation between utilizing the running game to balance out the passing game and overall success.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

I don't claim that there are not additional variables that factor into this pattern.

However, given that the statistical sample is 5+ years, and the pattern is so clear, I think it would be hard to take the position that there is not some meaningful correlation between utilizing the running game to balance out the passing game and overall success.

I'm sure there is a correlation. But again, teams run more whenever they're in the lead and able to separate from the opposition. They're able to run more when they've put themselves in a position to win and need to take as much time off the clock as possible. This is a pattern as well, one that exceeds five years of stats. It's a basic football strategy, and given the potency and strength of the Rams' offense from '99 through '01, I think it's more than fair to say that the Rams saw a lot of these opportunities because of their style of offense.

[AvengerRam]

Again, I'm not saying you don't have a point, but Barry's article basically tried to make it seem like there was NO evidence that having more of a balanced attack is beneficial, and then smugly accused Ram fans of spouting off on this topic without anything to back it up.


So... I backed it up.

[adarian_too]

An interesting, but not novel, idea. Build a straw man, simply to knock it down. Could work. But the real point is ball control. Keep away. Plain and simple. Along with that comes the assumptions that the offense will score when it has the ball and the defense will score when it can. The ratio of passes to runs becomes immaterial as long as ball control is maintained. As long as the offense and defense maintain ball control, all else will fall into place.

[coy bacon]

Proudly copied off the Herd board: an interesting take on pass percentage / vs. wins

http://www.ramsrule.com/theoriginalh...ode=full&page=

This is during Martz tenure as HC.

2000 only 70% pass/run - Trent Green won.
2001 only 1 70% pass/run - Rams lost.
2002 4 70% pass/run - 2-2 (Bulger win and Martin win in last game of season vs Niners)

3-3 over those 3 seasons.

So expand this some and make it 65% passing

2000 6 games with 65%+ passing = 2-4
2001 3 games with 65%+ passing = 1-2
2002 11 games with 65%+ passing = 3-8

Now does anyone honestly believe Martz knows his team went 6-14 when they pass on 65% or more of their plays from '00 to '02?

2003

2 games over 70% passing - 0-2 dropping the record to 3-5
5 games over 65% passing (including Carolina game).

[AvengerRam]

You hear that, Barry?

[Nick]

We have a whole other thread discussing the problems with that post.