Fat Rob’ says Jay Gruden told him to lose weight because Redskins will run more

[skinsdad62]

You and I debated this point last year. Running 20 times for 1 yard per carry does little to help the play action game. Lets not forget that play action is still huge even in todays NFL game. In games where we did not run effectively the opposing D dropped LBers deeper which negated play action and we did not play well offensively.

Running is important to an extent but today's game is based more than ever on passing. The rules are setup to make the passing game much easier than it ever was before.

realistically you arent running for 20 x 's on 1 yard per carry . you have to be able to run . not saying its more important then passing but being one dimentional kills you

 

[ehb5]

You and I debated this point last year. Running 20 times for 1 yard per carry does little to help the play action game. Lets not forget that play action is still huge even in todays NFL game. In games where we did not run effectively the opposing D dropped LBers deeper which negated play action and we did not play well offensively.

Running is important to an extent but today's game is based more than ever on passing. The rules are setup to make the passing game much easier than it ever was before.

No argument there

 

[Sportster 72]

realistically you arent running for 20 x 's on 1 yard per carry . you have to be able to run . not saying its more important then passing but being one dimentional kills you

Absolutely right. If you run times for 1 yard each it is going to be a longgggg game. There were a few where it seemed like 1 yard each though.

 

[skinsdad62]

Absolutely right. If you run times for 1 yard each it is going to be a longgggg game. There were a few where it seemed like 1 yard each though.

i think a better way to say it is you want a guy in the backfield who can put 75- 100yds or so a game on you so you force respect

 

[Breed]

according to PFF in a thread i posted , it says the skins were 5th in 3rd 4th short yardage and goal to goal conversions at 72 %. play calling may have been an issue

Interesting. Far as the play-calling in the RZ being an issue. I've been saying that since last year.

 

[Breed]

Do we really need to run more?

Yes. The Skins were only 27th in the NFL in carries as a team with 379 total carries/23.7 carries per game. Yet they were 21st in rushing yards with 1696. They were tied with GB as the 7th best team in the NFL far as average yards per rush with 4.5 yards per carry and only 5 teams had more rushing TDs than the Skins 17. All of whom had more rushing att than the Skins 379.

Play-callling, at least imo, was called in such a way at times last year that tried to build up Kirk/his stats. That hurt the running game and ov era;ll hurt the Redskins as well imo. When we were a better balanced team far as running/passing. We were a much more stable team. Both on offense and defense.

 

[ehb5]

Yes. The Skins were only 27th in the NFL in carries as a team with 379 total carries/23.7 carries per game. Yet they were 21st in rushing yards with 1696. They were tied with GB as the 7th best team in the NFL far as average yards per rush with 4.5 yards per carry and only 5 teams had more rushing TDs than the Skins 17. All of whom had more rushing att than the Skins 379.

Play-callling, at least imo, was called in such a way at times last year that tried to build up Kirk/his stats. That hurt the running game and ov era;ll hurt the Redskins as well imo. When we were a better balanced team far as running/passing. We were a much more stable team. Both on offense and defense.

Why would that mean we should run more though? We were more efficient passing than we were running so really running more would just mean moving towards a less efficient style of offense.

 

[Breed]

Why would that mean we should run more though? We were more efficient passing than we were running so really running more would just mean moving towards a less efficient style of offense.

I told you. Aside from the stability and balance it gave the team. The stats suggest that although the Redskins runners didn't get a lotta carries, 27th in the league. Finishing as the 21st team in rushing yardage, as well asd top ten both ypa and TDs scored, Leads me to believe that when they did run they found success with it.

How were the Skins more efficient passing than running the ball?

 

[ehb5]

I told you. Aside from the stability and balance it gave the team. The stats suggest that although the Redskins runners didn't get a lotta carries, 27th in the league. Finishing as the 21st team in rushing yardage, as well asd top ten both ypa and TDs scored, Leads me to believe that when they did run they found success with it.

How were the Skins more efficient passing than running the ball?

Whether they found success running doesn't really matter though. They found MORE success passing (on a per pay basis). Therefore running the ball more means you move away from the more efficient style of offense. It's not that running the ball doesn't have value but rather that there's likely a limit to that value and in almost every situation its better to pass.

 

[Breed]

Whether they found success running doesn't really matter though. They found MORE success passing (on a per pay basis).

Show me.

t's not that running the ball doesn't have value but rather that there's likely a limit to that value

Isn't there a limit to the value of passing the ball as well. Or is that value limitless?

and in almost every situation its better to pass.

Really eh. Hmmm.

 

[ehb5]

Show me.



Isn't there a limit to the value of passing the ball as well. Or is that value limitless?



Really eh. Hmmm.

7.6 Net yards per attempt passing vs 4.5 per attempt rushing. So the expected gain of a pass play is more than 3 yards better compared to a run.



Im not sure what you mean with your second point here. Obviously the yards and points gained from passing is a finite number. But its a much higher finite number than than it is for running the ball. On the average given play a run may provide you value (say you gain 4 yards, run 30 seconds of clock off, and tire the D a little), but a passing play would be expected to provide MORE value therefore making the "value" gained from that run "limited". If you want to use a different word than limited be my guest but I think that explains what I mean by that.


To your last comment. This article explains why I say that. Running Backs Are Finally Getting Paid What They’re Worth

Its a good read but if you dont want to go through the whole thing this chart is a good look at some of the data.

 

[skinsdad62]

if you are forced into being one dimensional you are doomed

 

[ehb5]

if you are forced into being one dimensional you are doomed

We arent being forced into anything. That said...

1. Im not suggesting we never run the ball. Simply that running the ball is less efficient and therefore not something we need to worry about doing more of.

2. We dont actually KNOW that a one dimensional passing team couldnt be successful. Does it seem strange? Yea. Would it be optimal? I doubt it. But nobody has tried it aside from the Pats in a handful of games. A team built like the current Pats with a franchise QB and a loads of weapons though might be interesting to see if they went to that approach.

 

[Breed]

7.6 Net yards per attempt passing vs 4.5 per attempt rushing. So the expected gain of a pass play is more than 3 yards better compared to a run.



Im not sure what you mean with your second point here. Obviously the yards and points gained from passing is a finite number. But its a much higher finite number than than it is for running the ball. On the average given play a run may provide you value (say you gain 4 yards, run 30 seconds of clock off, and tire the D a little), but a passing play would be expected to provide MORE value therefore making the "value" gained from that run "limited". If you want to use a different word than limited be my guest but I think that explains what I mean by that.


To your last comment. This article explains why I say that. Running Backs Are Finally Getting Paid What They’re Worth

Its a good read but if you dont want to go through the whole thing this chart is a good look at some of the data.

View attachment 160509

Interesting, but too cut n dry, too clinical and gives no allowance whatsoever to intangibles.

 

[ehb5]

Interesting, but too cut n dry, too clinical and gives no allowance whatsoever to intangibles.

No offense meant, but what does that mean?

What are intangibles in this situation? And what are they providing?

And why should we care about "intangibles"?

 

[skinsdad62]

We arent being forced into anything. That said...

1. Im not suggesting we never run the ball. Simply that running the ball is less efficient and therefore not something we need to worry about doing more of.

2. We dont actually KNOW that a one dimensional passing team couldnt be successful. Does it seem strange? Yea. Would it be optimal? I doubt it. But nobody has tried it aside from the Pats in a handful of games. A team built like the current Pats with a franchise QB and a loads of weapons though might be interesting to see if they went to that approach.

defenses will figure out a one dimensional team . your stats dont deal with intangibles

 

[ehb5]

defenses will figure out a one dimensional team . your stats dont deal with intangibles

Maybe they will. It wouldnt surprise me at all. But we havent seen it.

Again with the intangibles - what do you even mean by that? What are they? What do they provide? And why do they matter?

 

[Sportster 72]

To say we are a passing team and this is an era where the pass is more prominent than ever is fair. To under value it is a mistake also. 2012 the Redskins offensive success was based as much on the run as the pass. How well do you think Dallas does last year without their running game.

You can't use yards per play when passing starts out as a longer play.

 

[skinsdad62]

Maybe they will. It wouldnt surprise me at all. But we havent seen it.

Again with the intangibles - what do you even mean by that? What are they? What do they provide? And why do they matter?

certain situations require certain things . that is intangibles . trust is another

 

[ehb5]

To say we are a passing team and this is an era where the pass is more prominent than ever is fair. To under value it is a mistake also. 2012 the Redskins offensive success was based as much on the run as the pass. How well do you think Dallas does last year without their running game.

You can't use yards per play when passing starts out as a longer play.

Sure. You can have success running the ball. But I think in MOST cases that wont hold up. Both the examples you name were largely freak seasons if you will. We all know the story of the RG3 year and its uniqueness but Dallas this year was incredibly unique as well. They had a rookie QB, a great RB, and one of the best Olines ever built. Of course running makes more sense for them than it would for other teams. So I agree running games have value, but I just think the amount of that value for most teams is not as large as we often think.

You can definitely use yards per play though. It is literally saying you gain more yards when you call a pass play than when you call a run play. Part of the reason is because passing plays target areas of the field more downfield but that doesnt change that passes are more efficient per play - its only part of the reason it happens.

That said if you wanted to look at it a different way you could use other statistics like Win Probability Added like they do in the article I linked. Only problem there is I dont have the data for that on a team by team basis but I am 100% confident our teams data would match the overall data from the article (if not show even more of an edge toward passing).