Interresting stats, follow up on offense balance. | Page 5 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Interresting stats, follow up on offense balance.

First of all, what is a "critical juncture," and second, where is the evidence that the team's percentage of runs at those times is any less than its percentage of runs in general?

The problem with your perception here is that it's based on nothing objective, yet you're stating it as though it's a certainty. It's entirely possible you're falling prey to confirmation bias here, in that the team could be running no less at the times you're talking about than it does in general.

Moreover, we're a long way from the point that rushing attempts predict wins, not rushing success. It's as if some people here believe that, despite the importance of rushing attempts, running the ball is nonetheless continent on success. That isn't true. You have to run the ball even when you aren't successful, yet, again, there is no evidence the Dolphins are less successful than the average team.

In other words, you could tell me the Dolphins are not successful running the ball in some way, and I wouldn't care. I would tell you they'd have to run the ball nonetheless. The critical point isn't whether they're successful.
*shrugs* So Shou, you're telling me that this aspect of the game can be objectively measured somehow? To say that rushing attempts leads to wins is more cliche than fact, IMO. If you aren't successful with those runs, you definitely WILL NOT win, IMO, because you aren't achieving anything constructive. If the opposing defense is stopping you cold with 6 or 7 in the box, you would continue to pound it and punt? Over and over again? I'm sorry, but I don't see that as being a very good plan, even when desperate. I'd say the first job of any coach is to know his team and what they can and cannot do. I'm not saying our staff is absolutely correct to abandon the run when they do, but I can certainly SEE WHY they do.
 
*shrugs* So Shou, you're telling me that this aspect of the game can be objectively measured somehow? To say that rushing attempts leads to wins is more cliche than fact, IMO. If you aren't successful with those runs, you definitely WILL NOT win, IMO, because you aren't achieving anything constructive. If the opposing defense is stopping you cold with 6 or 7 in the box, you would continue to pound it and punt? Over and over again? I'm sorry, but I don't see that as being a very good plan, even when desperate. I'd say the first job of any coach is to know his team and what they can and cannot do. I'm not saying our staff is absolutely correct to abandon the run when they do, but I can certainly SEE WHY they do.
Remember this game?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=330908005

Of course that's just one game, but If you want to ignore the objective evidence that the correlation between rushing attempts and wins is much stronger than the correlation between rushing success and wins, which proves that game is the rule and not the exception, that's certainly your prerogative. :)
 
Shouright,

The box score from the Cleveland game is quite interesting. Yes, it shows the Dolphins rushing for more attempts despite gaining fewer yards than Cleveland. However, it also shows that the Dolphins were 8 for 16 vs 1 for 14 on 3rd down conversions. It further shows the Dolphins won the turnover ratio 3 to 1.

This appears to be a game where the Dolphins built a lead and used up the clock with an abundance of 4th quarter rushes after a 4th quarter turnover by Cleveland.

This box score does not support a causal relationship between rushing attempts and winning. Instead, it demonstrates success in two other critical statistics the result of which allowed for an abundance of 4th quarter rushes as a riskless strategy by which to close out the game.

I don't believe that you can look at rushing attempts in isolation and establish causality.



Remember this game?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=330908005

Of course that's just one game, but If you want to ignore the objective evidence that the correlation between rushing attempts and wins is much stronger than the correlation between rushing success and wins, which proves that game is the rule and not the exception, that's certainly your prerogative. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
so who has a better chance of winning a ballgame.

team A who has 40 rushing attempts for 30 yards, or team 2 who rushes 10 times for 125 yards and three touchdowns?
 
Shouright,

What we need to examine as a next step are the correlations between rushing attempt differential and win percentage for varying levels of turnover differential. This could help determine whether higher turnover differentials account for the increase in rushing attempts as a safe strategy by which games can be closed out.
 
Remember this game?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=330908005

Of course that's just one game, but If you want to ignore the objective evidence that the correlation between rushing attempts and wins is much stronger than the correlation between rushing success and wins, which proves that game is the rule and not the exception, that's certainly your prerogative. :)

OK, I've seen the stats you are referring to and they definitely show that when we do try to rush in most situations, we are successful most of the time. However, we also have to consider the matter of ball control. Is the correlation between winning and ball control better than the correlation between running attempts and winning? I suspect it is.

Ball control can be achieved by running or with a short passing game, or with a mix of the two. Against a team like Carolina with a top 5 run defense, perhaps the ball control method of choice in that situation clearly was the short passing game?
 
Shouright,

The box score from the Cleveland game is quite interesting. Yes, it shows the Dolphins rushing for more attempts despite gaining fewer yards than Cleveland. However, it also shows that the Dolphins were 8 for 16 vs 1 for 14 on 3rd down conversions. It further shows the Dolphins won the turnover ratio 3 to 1.

This appears to be a game where the Dolphins built a lead and used up the clock with an abundance of 4th quarter rushes after a 4th quarter turnover by Cleveland.

This box score does not support a causal relationship between rushing attempts and winning. Instead, it demonstrates success in two other critical statistics the result of which allowed for an abundance of 4th quarter rushes as a riskless strategy by which to close out the game.

I don't believe that you can look at rushing attempts in isolation and establish causality.
I don't think so either. We're working with a correlation at this point. We'd need much more than that to establish causality.

However, take a look at this game, as well:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=310206009

Here we see the converse, where QB rating differential, YPA differential, and turnover differential -- all variables strongly associated with winning -- favor one team to a large degree, in which case the expected result would be a blowout, yet the difference in the running game resulted in only a six-point win.
 
Shouright,

What we need to examine as a next step are the correlations between rushing attempt differential and win percentage for varying levels of turnover differential. This could help determine whether higher turnover differentials account for the increase in rushing attempts as a safe strategy by which games can be closed out.
It looks as if the correlation between rushing attempts differential and winning percentage is diminished by just a tad less than 0.1 by controlling for turnover differential.

Obviously there is the potential for a path analysis here that includes a larger number of relevant variables, and it would likely point to the fact that there's more than one way to skin a cat (i.e., win).

However, I suspect that what it would also show is that, when you don't have a QB who can carry an offense, you probably ought not be imbalanced in the direction of the pass.

Another relevant thing here is that turnovers are largely random. They don't even predict their own future occurrence within the same season. So I don't think teams should be planning their offensive strategies on the basis of turnovers.
 
OK, I've seen the stats you are referring to and they definitely show that when we do try to rush in most situations, we are successful most of the time. However, we also have to consider the matter of ball control. Is the correlation between winning and ball control better than the correlation between running attempts and winning? I suspect it is.

Ball control can be achieved by running or with a short passing game, or with a mix of the two. Against a team like Carolina with a top 5 run defense, perhaps the ball control method of choice in that situation clearly was the short passing game?
Do you suspect we'd measure that with something like first downs?
 
NFL Team Rushing Offense Statistics - 2013
RK TEAM ATT YDS YDS/A LONG TD YDS/G FUM FUML
1 Washington 333 1666 5.0 45 12 151.5 7 2
2 Philadelphia 337 1657 4.9 61 10 150.6 2 2
3 Seattle 358 1627 4.5 43 11 147.9 6 2
4 Oakland 341 1597 4.7 93 12 133.1 4 2
5 Green Bay 335 1563 4.7 67 11 130.3 6 3
6 San Francisco 349 1486 4.3 41 15 135.1 6 4
7 Buffalo 363 1475 4.1 61 9 134.1 9 3
8 NY Jets 330 1397 4.2 69 6 127.0 5 1
9 Carolina 343 1389 4.1 27 11 126.3 3 1
10 New England 323 1385 4.3 47 12 125.9 7 6
11 Detroit 326 1382 4.2 39 11 115.2 11 6
12 Minnesota 286 1347 4.7 78 15 122.5 6 3
13 Denver 340 1331 3.9 35 14 121.0 10 6
14 Kansas City 298 1329 4.5 46 9 120.8 5 2
15 Houston 294 1280 4.4 60 2 116.4 2 2
16 St. Louis 290 1252 4.3 65 6 113.8 4 2
17 Tennessee 305 1237 4.1 39 10 112.5 7 2
18 San Diego 305 1219 4.0 51 6 110.8 4 2
19 Indianapolis 274 1209 4.4 50 11 109.9 1 1
20 Tampa Bay 311 1208 3.9 43 4 109.8 5 1
21 Cincinnati 319 1187 3.7 35 7 107.9 5 2
22 Chicago 273 1183 4.3 55 9 107.5 3 2
23 New Orleans 277 1075 3.9 34 7 97.7 1 1
24 Dallas 249 1021 4.1 45 9 85.1 4 0
25 Arizona 267 976 3.7 80 8 88.7 6 3
26 Baltimore 333 973 2.9 47 6 81.1 2 2
27 NY Giants 268 972 3.6 37 7 88.4 6 4
28 Miami 231 939 4.1 49 7 85.4 3 2
29 Pittsburgh 279 922 3.3 43 5 76.8 4 2
30 Cleveland 235 891 3.8 45 1 81.0 2 2
31 Atlanta 207 822 4.0 50 5 74.7 0 0
32 Jacksonville 253 735 2.9 44 7 66.8 3 1
 
NFL Team Rushing Offense Statistics - 2013
RK TEAM ATT YDS YDS/A LONG TD YDS/G FUM FUML
1 Washington 333 1666 5.0 45 12 151.5 7 2
2 Philadelphia 337 1657 4.9 61 10 150.6 2 2
3 Seattle 358 1627 4.5 43 11 147.9 6 2
4 Oakland 341 1597 4.7 93 12 133.1 4 2
5 Green Bay 335 1563 4.7 67 11 130.3 6 3
6 San Francisco 349 1486 4.3 41 15 135.1 6 4
7 Buffalo 363 1475 4.1 61 9 134.1 9 3
8 NY Jets 330 1397 4.2 69 6 127.0 5 1
9 Carolina 343 1389 4.1 27 11 126.3 3 1
10 New England 323 1385 4.3 47 12 125.9 7 6
11 Detroit 326 1382 4.2 39 11 115.2 11 6
12 Minnesota 286 1347 4.7 78 15 122.5 6 3
13 Denver 340 1331 3.9 35 14 121.0 10 6
14 Kansas City 298 1329 4.5 46 9 120.8 5 2
15 Houston 294 1280 4.4 60 2 116.4 2 2
16 St. Louis 290 1252 4.3 65 6 113.8 4 2
17 Tennessee 305 1237 4.1 39 10 112.5 7 2
18 San Diego 305 1219 4.0 51 6 110.8 4 2
19 Indianapolis 274 1209 4.4 50 11 109.9 1 1
20 Tampa Bay 311 1208 3.9 43 4 109.8 5 1
21 Cincinnati 319 1187 3.7 35 7 107.9 5 2
22 Chicago 273 1183 4.3 55 9 107.5 3 2
23 New Orleans 277 1075 3.9 34 7 97.7 1 1
24 Dallas 249 1021 4.1 45 9 85.1 4 0
25 Arizona 267 976 3.7 80 8 88.7 6 3
26 Baltimore 333 973 2.9 47 6 81.1 2 2
27 NY Giants 268 972 3.6 37 7 88.4 6 4
28 Miami 231 939 4.1 49 7 85.4 3 2
29 Pittsburgh 279 922 3.3 43 5 76.8 4 2
30 Cleveland 235 891 3.8 45 1 81.0 2 2
31 Atlanta 207 822 4.0 50 5 74.7 0 0
32 Jacksonville 253 735 2.9 44 7 66.8 3 1

from the looks of this list, quite a few of those teams who are in the lead with rushing attempts have an at or below .500 record. I must be confused, I thought that I was told rushing attempts correlates positively to winning ballgames.

from the top of my head..
washington, oakland, buffalo, jets, greenbay, baltimore, houston, tennessee, all have a record at or below .500. Some of those teams have a well below .500 record. And most of them have over 300 rushing attempts at this point, and some are at the top of the list provided in rushing attempts.

which leads me to believe that the premise that rushing attempts being high correlates to winning, is debatable at best...

thanks for doing the work on that list lurking!!
 
from the looks of this list, quite a few of those teams who are in the lead with rushing attempts have an at or below .500 record. I must be confused, I thought that I was told rushing attempts correlates positively to winning ballgames.

from the top of my head..
washington, oakland, buffalo, jets, greenbay, baltimore, houston, tennessee, all have a record at or below .500. Some of those teams have a well below .500 record. And most of them have over 300 rushing attempts at this point, and some are at the top of the list provided in rushing attempts.

which leads me to believe that the premise that rushing attempts being high correlates to winning, is debatable at best...

thanks for doing the work on that list lurking!!
Rushing attempts differential. :)
 
from the looks of this list, quite a few of those teams who are in the lead with rushing attempts have an at or below .500 record. I must be confused, I thought that I was told rushing attempts correlates positively to winning ballgames.

from the top of my head..
washington, oakland, buffalo, jets, greenbay, baltimore, houston, tennessee, all have a record at or below .500. Some of those teams have a well below .500 record. And most of them have over 300 rushing attempts at this point, and some are at the top of the list provided in rushing attempts.

which leads me to believe that the premise that rushing attempts being high correlates to winning, is debatable at best...

thanks for doing the work on that list lurking!!


It all depends. In the case of teams like the Jets, Vikings and Bills, they run the ball because they are deathly afraid to put the game in the hands of their QBs, even when it is obviously a losing strategy. The Jets had have multiple games this year with Geno Smith having like ten or fifteen pass attempts even though they were trailing the entire game. Rex was basically content to play for a defensive or special teams score rather than letting Geno throw another pick six.

That's really not a recipe for winning football. Those who said that you need to be able to run when you have to, and pass when you have to, are right.
 
Top 10 team in terms of rushing attempts per game:

1 Buffalo Bills 11 21.5 236 363 33.0 1,475 4.1 134.1 9 61 76 20.9 7 4 9
2 Seattle Seahawks 11 27.8 306 358 32.5 1,627 4.5 147.9 11 43 90 25.1 10 1 6
3 San Francisco 49ers 11 24.9 274 349 31.7 1,486 4.3 135.1 15 41 80 22.9 15 1 6
4 Carolina Panthers 11 23.5 258 343 31.2 1,389 4.0 126.3 11 27T 89 25.9 7 0 3
5 Denver Broncos 11 39 429 340 30.9 1,331 3.9 121.0 14 35 78 22.9 3 0 10
6 Philadelphia Eagles 11 25.1 276 337 30.6 1,657 4.9 150.6 10 61 87 25.8 11 2 2
7 Washington Redskins 11 22.9 252 333 30.3 1,666 5.0 151.5 12 45T 87 26.1 14 1 7
8 New York Jets 11 16.9 186 330 30.0 1,397 4.2 127.0 6 69 65 19.7 8 2 5
9 New England Patriots 11 26.2 288 323 29.4 1,385 4.3 125.9 12 47T 68 21.1 9 2 7
10 Cincinnati Bengals 11 25 275 319 29.0 1,187 3.7 107.9 7 35T 63 19.7 4 0 5

Going team by team:

The Bills have only one more loss than the Dolphins despite having one of the most tumultuous QB situations in the NFL.
The Seahawks are the best team in football, and they were able to navigate an O-line situation about as bad as Miami's - because of their commitment to the run.
San Francisco throws for less yards than anyone in the NFL. If it weren't for a blown call in New Orleans, they'd be 8-3.
Carolina is the last team to legitimately beat San Fran. This is not a team that most people had competing at this level. I'd guess that 80% of the posters here penciled the Carolina game as a win for Miami before the start of the season.
Denver has one of the best QB's ever, and they're only averaging 3.9 YPA (worse than ours). Yet, they still find value in controlling the game on the ground. If it weren't for M. Ball being a fumbling machine, they'd only have the one loss - despite a banged up O-line and banged-up D.
The Eagles are much more successful than most people anticipated. That's the common theme with these teams - either they're great, or they're playing much better than expected.
Washington is the exception to this rule. But why is that? For starters, people grossly overrated RG3. Just as importantly, their D is horrendous.
It's fun to pick on the Jets. I love it! But this team has the same record as us despite a QB who can't hold on to the ball. When Smith doesn't turn it over, they're beating teams like New England and New Orleans. Also remember, this team was supposed to be terrible.
The Patriots have a comfortable lead in the division because of the run game. For most of the season, this passing offense has been terrible. It's starting to come around a little, but the commitment to the run makes New England one of the favorites in the AFC.
And then you have the Bengals. Andy Dalton should be a back up QB somewhere. He blows. Despite all the talent that this team possesses, they wouldn't be competitive if they relied on Dalton week in and week out.

Running the ball allows you to control the game; it opens up the big play in the passing game; it helps limit penalties and turnovers (unless you're the Broncos who fumble like it's 1999); and it's just the sign of a better team. If you don't have a belief in your running game at this point in the season, what the **** have you been doing ALL year? Passing the ball is more instantly gratifying, because teams average more yards per pass than yards per rush (even if they're great at running and suck at passing), but that doesn't take into account negative plays (turnovers, penalties, sacks). This Miami team was built for failure, and we seem content to stay the course.
 
It all depends. In the case of teams like the Jets, Vikings and Bills, they run the ball because they are deathly afraid to put the game in the hands of their QBs, even when it is obviously a losing strategy. The Jets had have multiple games this year with Geno Smith having like ten or fifteen pass attempts even though they were trailing the entire game. Rex was basically content to play for a defensive or special teams score rather than letting Geno throw another pick six.

That's really not a recipe for winning football. Those who said that you need to be able to run when you have to, and pass when you have to, are right.



isn't that pretty damn obvious?
 
Back
Top Bottom