Pass vs Run, which is more crucial to victory?

[JohnnyHector]

Passing more crucial

4 of top 5 QB's by passer rating last year were in playoffs.. and 8 of top 10

2 of top 5 RB's by YPC last year were in playoffs, and 4 of 10

Did you really just cite passer rating as the key statistic in making your argument?

[CTM]

Your making the comparison between A running back and A QB its not what hes asking. Of course QB's are the most important part of any offense but they dont wear down defenses the running game does. The running game also runs out the clock to preserve the lead late in the 4th.

The real answer is a well balanced offense wins games and wins SB's to go along with a solid defense. One Dimentional teams do not win SB's so no matter how much we argue about whats better than the other thats what it comes down too. The rare exception of teams like the 2000 Ravens crop up once in a while but its very rare you see an all out passing offense with no running game win a SB, just as rare as the Ravens.

The real answer is that having a top tier QB means you win lots of games, go to the playoffs a lot and have a lot of chances to win a SB. The same can not be said for running games or defenses.

Did you really just cite passer rating as the key statistic in making your argument?

yes. but my post was merely expanding the window on the intial base stats..

[SenorGato]

Of course QB's are the most important part of any offense but they dont wear down defenses the running game does.

Brady to Welker when it's going strong...

It's possible to build a pseudo-running game through quick passes...It's just extremely hard to find the QB who can do that.

[Smashmouth]

Brady to Welker when it's going strong...

It's possible to build a pseudo-running game through quick passes...It's just extremely hard to find the QB who can do that.

Since Brady got his High Powered passing game how many SB's has he won ?

[Smashmouth]

The real answer is that having a top tier QB means you win lots of games, go to the playoffs a lot and have a lot of chances to win a SB. The same can not be said for running games or defenses.

Yeah and when you get to the playoffs with that top tier QB how many of them win with out a running game ? Peyton Manning Compared to Troy Aikman or Even Terry Bradshaw is a much better pure passer with a huge advantage in stats so why did those guys combine for 7 SB's while Peyton has 1. If Peyotn had a running game like those guys did I would bet he would have more Rings. How about Dan Marino argueably the best pure passer ever to play how about Dan Fouts, Phillip Rivers.

[Jbro22]

You'll obviously have more passing yards if you're playing from behind. Those stats aren't worth much.

Passing the ball gives you momentum, running the ball keeps momentum.

[Smashmouth]

You'll obviously have more passing yards if you're playing from behind. Those stats aren't worth much.

Passing the ball gives you momentum, running the ball keeps momentum.

Which brings us back to Balance, you can win if you have one without the other BUT it usually bites you in the playoffs.

[Scott Dierking]

Passing more crucial

4 of top 5 QB's by passer rating last year were in playoffs.. and 8 of top 10

2 of top 5 RB's by YPC last year were in playoffs, and 4 of 10

BALANCE is MOST crucial

[Scott Dierking]

4 of top 5 QB's by passer rating last year were in playoffs.. and 8 of top 10

So, given this criteria, Chad Pennington would be a prototypical qb,

[CTM]

Yeah and when you get to the playoffs with that top tier QB how many of them win with out a running game ? Peyton Manning Compared to Troy Aikman or Even Terry Bradshaw is a much better pure passer with a huge advantage in stats so why did those guys combine for 7 SB's while Peyton has 1. If Peyotn had a running game like those guys did I would bet he would have more Rings. How about Dan Marino argueably the best pure passer ever to play how about Dan Fouts, Phillip Rivers.

Manning and Marino are well documented chokers.. Brady only had a good running game in 04, yet won 3. THe 49'ers, for as good as Roger Craig was, we're never a grind it out running teamand used the pass to set up the run.

Lastly, outside of Manning/Rivers.. most of those guys played in a league that was way less slanted towards the passing game then we have now. manning's been to 2 SB's and beat the good defense/running team while losing to passing team. Big Ben's got 2, the second of which had to be won with passing as thier great defense was unable to stop the great passing team on the other side of the ball.

[Aten]

I don't like these debates because I think there is value in contrarianism.

If there were value in contrarianism you'd like the debates. Contrarianism is countering demonstrable statistical correlation with truism and anecdote and then being proud of yourself for thinking outside the box. This isn't a very good forum for real debate due to a lack of suitable subject matter. Either we're arguing stuff that can't really be known by anybody, e.g., Schottenheimer's impact on our offensive performance, or stuff that already is known by everybody, e.g., this.

[CTM]

So, given this criteria, Chad Pennington would be a prototypical qb,

rep'd

[RutgersJetFan]

Ultimately you don't win by taking longer to score points, you win by having more points than the other team.

Oliver Stone himself couldn't come up with a line as good as this.

[slats]

Your making the comparison between A running back and A QB its not what hes asking. Of course QB's are the most important part of any offense but they dont wear down defenses the running game does. The running game also runs out the clock to preserve the lead late in the 4th.

You have to get the lead first. Teams that make it to the final couple weeks of the year are generally teams that can excel in the two-minute offense. You don't excel in that even with the best running game in the league (see Jets, 2009), that requires a passing game. A good one.

The real answer is a well balanced offense wins games and wins SB's to go along with a solid defense. One Dimentional teams do not win SB's so no matter how much we argue about whats better than the other thats what it comes down too. The rare exception of teams like the 2000 Ravens crop up once in a while but its very rare you see an all out passing offense with no running game win a SB, just as rare as the Ravens.

Yeah and when you get to the playoffs with that top tier QB how many of them win with out a running game ? Peyton Manning Compared to Troy Aikman or Even Terry Bradshaw is a much better pure passer with a huge advantage in stats so why did those guys combine for 7 SB's while Peyton has 1. If Peyotn had a running game like those guys did I would bet he would have more Rings. How about Dan Marino argueably the best pure passer ever to play how about Dan Fouts, Phillip Rivers.

So when discussing the importance of the running game, we talk about how balance is important. But when dismissing the importance of the passing game, you ask about passing teams with no running game at all as your example?

The answer to your question, "...when you get to the playoffs with that top tier QB how many of them win with out a running game ?", is...

More than teams with a top tier running game and no passing game. Almost all of the great QB's have won championships, while there are tons of great RB's who never got close. You can mention Marino (I love that example, btw!) or Fouts, but what about Sanders, Campbell, Simpson, our own LT or Curtis Martin, etc. You think Frank Gore or Steven Jackson are lifting their respective teams to a Super Bowl?

Of course some sort of balance is the key, but you generally need to be able to score points quickly and in bunches if you're hoping to be a championship caliber team, and that means throwing the ball. That's why the Colts beat the Jets last year. Their top passing attack was too much for our #1 defense and #1 rushing offense. If Shonn Greene had not gotten hurt, the Jets might've been able to keep it closer - but they weren't going to win that game. The top passing teams each year read like a who's who of playoff teams. It's not perfect, but there's a closer correlation between top passing offenses and the postseason than any other statistical comparison. Be it rushing offense, total defense, whatever. There's a reason for that.

You're just going to get a lot further in the NFL with a monster passing game and an adequate rushing game than the other way around.

[Irish Jet]

If there were value in contrarianism you'd like the debates. Contrarianism is countering demonstrable statistical correlation with truism and anecdote and then being proud of yourself for thinking outside the box. This isn't a very good forum for real debate due to a lack of suitable subject matter. Either we're arguing stuff that can't really be known by anybody, e.g., Schottenheimer's impact on our offensive performance, or stuff that already is known by everybody, e.g., this.

I like to use smart words so thatz my brainz dont look dumb

[Smashmouth]

Manning and Marino are well documented chokers.. Brady only had a good running game in 04, yet won 3. THe 49'ers, for as good as Roger Craig was, we're never a grind it out running teamand used the pass to set up the run.

Lastly, outside of Manning/Rivers.. most of those guys played in a league that was way less slanted towards the passing game then we have now. manning's been to 2 SB's and beat the good defense/running team while losing to passing team. Big Ben's got 2, the second of which had to be won with passing as thier great defense was unable to stop the great passing team on the other side of the ball.

Not talking about a grind it out running team Im talking about balance.

In Bill Walshes WC offense the Niners had great all around balanced Running backs AND Fullbacks lots of short dumps to those guys to open up the offense. The WC offense is a ball control passing offense but Montana had every weapon available and he also had those incredible all around backs a great TE and a great O-line. When that team was on, no one could stop them a top 5 defense every year didnt hurt either . I bolded BALL CONTROL because it had the same effect of a running game it chewed up the clock and rested the defense keeping the other offense off the field.

CTM we can go back and forth all day on this the bottom line is Balance. Defense, Good QB, good passing attack, Good Running game, = SB contender lacking in any of these areas in a big way, makes it very difficult to win a SB. SO... one dimentional Running teams rarely win SB's and One dimentional passing teams rarely win SB's

[CTM]

Not talking about a grind it out running team Im talking about balance.

In Bill Walshes WC offense the Niners had great all around balanced Running backs AND Fullbacks lots of short dumps to those guys to open up the offense. The WC offense is a ball control passing offense but Montana had every weapon available and he also had those incredible all around backs a great TE and a great O-line. When that team was on, no one could stop them a top 5 defense every year didnt hurt either . I bolded BALL CONTROL because it had the same effect of a running game it chewed up the clock and rested the defense keeping the other offense off the field.

CTM we can go back and forth all day on this the bottom line is Balance. Defense, Good QB, good passing attack, Good Running game, = SB contender lacking in any of these areas in a big way, makes it very difficult to win a SB. SO... one dimentional Running teams rarely win SB's and One dimentional passing teams rarely win SB's

So Manning and his running game have been historically deficient compared to what the 49'ers had? Didn't Edge lead the league in rushing a few times while Mannign was choking in the playoffs?

I don't get you're point. You're argueing against a run and shoot offense...

[Smashmouth]

You have to get the lead first. Teams that make it to the final couple weeks of the year are generally teams that can excel in the two-minute offense. You don't excel in that even with the best running game in the league (see Jets, 2009), that requires a passing game. A good one.

So when discussing the importance of the running game, we talk about how balance is important. But when dismissing the importance of the passing game, you ask about passing teams with no running game at all as your example?

The answer to your question, "...when you get to the playoffs with that top tier QB how many of them win with out a running game ?", is...

More than teams with a top tier running game and no passing game. Almost all of the great QB's have won championships, while there are tons of great RB's who never got close. You can mention Marino (I love that example, btw!) or Fouts, but what about Sanders, Campbell, Simpson, our own LT or Curtis Martin, etc. You think Frank Gore or Steven Jackson are lifting their respective teams to a Super Bowl?

Of course some sort of balance is the key, but you generally need to be able to score points quickly and in bunches if you're hoping to be a championship caliber team, and that means throwing the ball. That's why the Colts beat the Jets last year. Their top passing attack was too much for our #1 defense and #1 rushing offense. If Shonn Greene had not gotten hurt, the Jets might've been able to keep it closer - but they weren't going to win that game. The top passing teams each year read like a who's who of playoff teams. It's not perfect, but there's a closer correlation between top passing offenses and the postseason than any other statistical comparison. Be it rushing offense, total defense, whatever. There's a reason for that.

You're just going to get a lot further in the NFL with a monster passing game and an adequate rushing game than the other way around.

Slats when did I dismiss the importance of the passing game ?

Also comparing RB's to QB's is not a fair comparison by you doing that do I get to compare great WR's who played for horrible teams as well ?

The main question here is whats more important not the make up of an entire team. IMHO any team that gets to the playoffs is a good football team. If they are lacking in any of the main areas they will at some point be exposed.

[JohnnyHector]

rep'd

You deserve negative rep for not realizing that is the exact reason I mocked you for using passer rating as the basis of your argument.

[CTM]

You deserve negative rep for not realizing that is the exact reason I mocked you for using passer rating as the basis of your argument.

Yes I did.. but Scott and I have argued about it in the past so it was a better zing coming from him.. gfy

and you deserve neg rep for the lack of photoshops out of you lately.

[JohnnyHector]

and you deserve neg rep for the lack of photoshops out of you lately.

Work's a bitch...

[Smashmouth]

So Manning and his running game have been historically deficient compared to what the 49'ers had? Didn't Edge lead the league in rushing a few times while Mannign was choking in the playoffs?

I don't get you're point. You're argueing against a run and shoot offense...

Lots of different ways to look at running games and individual running backs. Like I said this arguement can go on forever. Barry Sanders was an incredible talent but he was not the kind of back who could grind out a win for you in the 4th quarter with 2 minutes left he didnt have the O-line for it and it was not his style, James was a bit of a wuss in tough situations he shyed away from contact ALOT in tough situations. Alot of that falls on the offensive line since teams put 8 or 9 men in the box to shut down the run so they can get the ball back for thier offense.

[CTM]

Work's a bitch...

so is jif, but that doesn't stop crusher

[slats]

Slats when did I dismiss the importance of the passing game ?

Also comparing RB's to QB's is not a fair comparison by you doing that do I get to compare great WR's who played for horrible teams as well ?

The main question here is whats more important not the make up of an entire team. IMHO any team that gets to the playoffs is a good football team. If they are lacking in any of the main areas they will at some point be exposed.

Your argument evolved from the rushing game is more important to the cop out of balance is more important.

You can compare total team rushing and passing stats against teams that make -and get deep into- the playoffs every year if you don't like the QB and RB numbers. I only did that because you brought up individual QB's who threw far but fell short of a championship. But if you do, you'll find that it's the top passing offenses that go farther. And have for a long time. As the rules continue to protect the passer and receiver more and more, you'll see the passing game becoming more and more important.

[Smashmouth]

Your argument evolved from the rushing game is more important to the cop out of balance is more important.

You can compare total team rushing and passing stats against teams that make -and get deep into- the playoffs every year if you don't like the QB and RB numbers. I only did that because you brought up individual QB's who threw far but fell short of a championship. But if you do, you'll find that it's the top passing offenses that go farther. And have for a long time. As the rules continue to protect the passer and receiver more and more, you'll see the passing game becoming more and more important.

Slats here is my first post which clearly imples balance but I gave reasons as to why in that balance a Good running attack can effect the game more and in many different ways. I did get a bit derailed but I was responding to questions. So I ll say this....In a balanced well rounded offense the running attack can have more impact on the game than the passing attack.

1st post :

The Running game is much more crutial to victory. More often than not, high passing numbers mean a team is usually playing from behind.

The running game does alot of things for a QB. It takes the pressure off of him and keeps Defenders from just all out rushing the passer. It helps keep defenses off balance and actully opens up the passing game with play action.

With 3 minutes left in the game and a small lead, it takes a good strong running game to run out the clock and seal the victory. Runing the ball early and often wears out defenses and keeps your defense off the field and fresh for the all important 4th quarter. Yes there are some exceptions to this rule just ask Peyton Manning or Tom Brady BUT thats a small percentage.I'll bet if you also asked those guys if they would appreciate a good solid Running game like the Saints and Drew Brees have they would take that in a heart beat over throwing the ball 35-50 times a game. In the early Tom Brady years the Pats were able to run and control the football and they won SB's what have they won recently with Randy Moss and Wes Welker ? The Passing yards Title ?

Peyton Manning has a big influence over how his offense operates, its no wonder he throws the ball so much. Its also no wonder how many times the Colts get knocked out of the playoffs due to the lack of a running game and not being able to shut the game down late, like the Cowboys of the early 90's did with regularity.

I think a good Running attack and a good passing attack go hand in hand, one helps the other, but its the little things the running game brings that make it the most important part of a good offense.

[Sperm Edwards]

This is silly.

You have to have a better overall team. Offense, defense, whatever. Score more points than your opponent whatever the method. Some with dominant passing attacks and not-so-great rushing attacks; some the opposite; and some with a more balanced attack. A defense that matches up well to one's opponents will trump whether or not an offense is balanced IMO.

Indy had the league's worst ground game and almost won the superbowl if not for a couple of breaks that went the other way (onside kick, INT return).

SD was 2nd-worst and clearly would have gone to duke it out with Indy if not for their kicker missing FG's so badly Bolts fans were sure the fix was in.

Houston at 3rd-worst in the league was on the bubble (9-7 record just like us) and were on the outside looking in due to tie breakers not due to overall wins/losses.

Arizona had the 5th-worst rushing attack and made it to the divisional round, losing to the SB champs

Those bottom-3 weren't just bottom-3 in total rushing yards; they were also the bottom-3 in ypc (in other words, it wasn't all due to having the fewest attempts). Yet they all had good seasons or better.

Tennessee: #2 rushing offense. 8-8 and missed the playoffs

Carolina: #3 rushing offense. 8-8 and missed the playoffs

Miami: #4 rushing offense. 7-9 and missed the playoffs

These teams weren't just up there in total rushing yards; they were also at or among the league's highest totals in rushing TDs as well.

Jets? #1 rushing offense, #31 passing offense, and were 30 minutes from the superbowl. Would have beaten the eventual SB champs in week 4 as well if not for a rookie QB doing what rookie QB's do.

There is no secret sauce in terms of passing>rushing, rushing>passing, or 50/50 balanced. Certainly nothing that can be determined by results of the first 3 weeks of a season. Need to excel in more than 1 thing (and that other thing may be on the other side of the ball), and then draw playoff opponents you match up well against.

[slats]

So I ll say this....In a balanced well rounded offense the running attack can have more impact on the game than the passing attack.

There you go, take a stand!

I absolutely disagree.

Jets? #1 rushing offense, #31 passing offense, and were 30 minutes from the superbowl. Would have beaten the eventual SB champs in week 4 as well if not for a rookie QB doing what rookie QB's do.

There is no secret sauce in terms of passing>rushing, rushing>passing, or 50/50 balanced. Certainly nothing that can be determined by results of the first 3 weeks of a season. Need to excel in more than 1 thing (and that other thing may be on the other side of the ball), and then draw playoff opponents you match up well against.

The Jets were an aberration of 2000 Ravens' proportions last year, and only got into the playoffs because the high powered Colts laid down during the regular season. The fact that you cite the QB's mistakes as the reason we lost to the Saints simply highlights the importance of the passing game.

While I agree with the rest of your post regarding secret formulas, I will stand by the point that historically a great passing offense will get you farther than a great rushing offense, or a great defense for that matter. And with the rules making touching a receiver or a QB a 15 yard penalty, the weighted importance of a quality passing offense will only increase.

[CTM]

While I agree with the rest of your post regarding secret formulas, I will stand by the point that historically a great passing offense will get you farther than a great rushing offense, or a great defense for that matter. And with the rules making touching a receiver or a QB a 15 yard penalty, the weighted importance of a quality passing offense will only increase.

Yeah, I'm wondering if that's going to come back around a bit. The amount of game changing PI penalties on MNF weeks 1 and 3 were a little crazy..

[Vicious89x]

Yeah, I'm wondering if that's going to come back around a bit. The amount of game changing PI penalties on MNF weeks 1 and 3 were a little crazy..

I think the difference now is you see guys like Austin Collie who can be paired with a great QB can become a fantastic receiver because you're not allowed to touch them. Guys who would've been average receivers in years past are becoming good receivers due to the rule changes. Throw in the fact that QB's are becoming more and more protected I think the game lends itself more to being more of a passing league. Mainly when you have a QB, you can more easily take advantage of the new rules and be a good offense then having to rely on a solid running game/defense.

Ultimately I dont' think there's any "formula" that is going to = success in the NFL. You play to your personnel. We were a Run/D first team last year and came within 30 minutes from the SB, but I don't' think anyone disagrees that had we gotten better play out our QB, like we have in the past 2 weeks, we might've played in the big dance. Not saying Sanchez was horrible, but if he was really moving the offense when our D/Run game let us down might've been a different story. It just goes to show that the passing game is as important as every other component. I guess my point is that the rules of today lend to making passing easier so having the QB that can take advantage of that is important.

[sirlancemehlot]

This is silly.

You have to have a better overall team. Offense, defense, whatever. Score more points than your opponent whatever the method. Some with dominant passing attacks and not-so-great rushing attacks; some the opposite; and some with a more balanced attack. A defense that matches up well to one's opponents will trump whether or not an offense is balanced IMO.

Indy had the league's worst ground game and almost won the superbowl if not for a couple of breaks that went the other way (onside kick, INT return).

SD was 2nd-worst and clearly would have gone to duke it out with Indy if not for their kicker missing FG's so badly Bolts fans were sure the fix was in.

Houston at 3rd-worst in the league was on the bubble (9-7 record just like us) and were on the outside looking in due to tie breakers not due to overall wins/losses.

Arizona had the 5th-worst rushing attack and made it to the divisional round, losing to the SB champs

Those bottom-3 weren't just bottom-3 in total rushing yards; they were also the bottom-3 in ypc (in other words, it wasn't all due to having the fewest attempts). Yet they all had good seasons or better.

Tennessee: #2 rushing offense. 8-8 and missed the playoffs

Carolina: #3 rushing offense. 8-8 and missed the playoffs

Miami: #4 rushing offense. 7-9 and missed the playoffs

These teams weren't just up there in total rushing yards; they were also at or among the league's highest totals in rushing TDs as well.

Jets? #1 rushing offense, #31 passing offense, and were 30 minutes from the superbowl. Would have beaten the eventual SB champs in week 4 as well if not for a rookie QB doing what rookie QB's do.

There is no secret sauce in terms of passing>rushing, rushing>passing, or 50/50 balanced. Certainly nothing that can be determined by results of the first 3 weeks of a season. Need to excel in more than 1 thing (and that other thing may be on the other side of the ball), and then draw playoff opponents you match up well against.

Thats about it in a nutshell. Whatever your strength...is your team better than the team lined up in front of you? If so, you'll likely win. The End.

[Sperm Edwards]

The Jets were an aberration of 2000 Ravens' proportions last year, and only got into the playoffs because the high powered Colts laid down during the regular season. The fact that you cite the QB's mistakes as the reason we lost to the Saints simply highlights the importance of the passing game.

While I agree with the rest of your post regarding secret formulas, I will stand by the point that historically a great passing offense will get you farther than a great rushing offense, or a great defense for that matter. And with the rules making touching a receiver or a QB a 15 yard penalty, the weighted importance of a quality passing offense will only increase.

I don't know. There's a whole lot of middle in between an average passing attack and what we had last year. We got in due to the Colts resting starters. Sure, but only a 6-interception game against the lowly Bills made that necessary. That isn't the result of not having a great passing game; that's the result of a hideous passing game. Besides, every team gets breaks. Good teams make the most of them.

[Jetsfan80]

I would argue that if you're going to be a run-heavy team, you need to be able to go vertical in the passing game every once in a while to keep defenses honest. This is why, in the case of the Jets, Tannenbaum picked up Edwards and then Holmes, and why you're also seeing downfield throws to Keller.

[dbatesman]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/establishment-clause

/hides

[Smashmouth]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2003/establishment-clause

/hides

Good article.

So winning teams get most of their rushing yards running out the clock to secure the victory. I would like to see a stat on how many losing teams just didnt have what it took to run out the clock giving the other team multiple shots at coming back in the game. How many times do you see crappy teams take a lead into the 4th quarter and simply not be able to hold onto that lead. Is that a direct reflection of a bad running game ?