Does a Good Passing Game Really Open Up the Running Game?

[averagejoe]

Fantasy Football Fallacy - Does a good passing game really open up the running game?

Many fantasy owners truly believe this is the case. It's a philosophy that must appear to be true since so many use the statement in reasoning out their projections. Consequently, fantasy owners will pin their hopes on a less-than-elite fantasy player because they believe that the off-season changes made by that NFL team will translate into a better passing game, which will then improve the run game.

However the statistics may not support this theory, particularly from a fantasy perspective. As evidence, consider the top HALF of the NFL from 2012. Below are the top 16 (half of the NFL) passing team leaders from 2012. Adjacent is the team rushing rank.

1) New Orleans had the best passing offense. But ranked 25 in rushing.
2) Detroit was next. Ranked 23 in rushing.
3) Dallas. Ranked 31 in rushing.
4) New England. Ranked 7 in rushing. Steven Ridley led the team with 1263 yards and ranked 7 among rushing leaders.
5) Denver. Ranked 16 in rushing.
6) Atlanta. Ranked 29 in rushing.
7) Indianapolis. Ranked 22 in rushing.
8) Oakland. Ranked 28 in rushing.
9) Green Bay. Ranked 20 in rushing..
10) Tampa Bay. Ranked 15 in rushing. Doug Martin led the team with 1454 yards and ranked 5 among rushing leaders.
11) Houston. Ranked 8 in rushing. Arian Foster led the team with 1424 yards and ranked 6 among rushing leaders.
12) Giants. Ranked 14 in rushing.
13) Philadelphia. Ranked 13 in rushing.
14) Pittsburgh. Ranked 26 in rushing.
15) Baltimore. Ranked 11 in rushing.
16) Carolina. Ranked 9 in rushing. Cam Newton led the team in rushing with 741 yards and ranked 24 among rushing leaders.

Let's put the list above into perspective.

First of all, it contains the top half of the NFL passing leaders. But should we consider teams that rank 13 or worse to be of the passing elite? Generally not. As proof, just consider the current fantasy rankings of the QB from the teams ranked 11-15. Not too many fantasy owners are sold on Schaub, Eli, Flacco or Big Ben. (And Carolina is a whole other story since Newton was both the passing and rushing leader.)

It's fair to say then, that considering 16 teams is more than a generous gauge to determine whether a good passing game will open up the running game. So how did these 16 teams fair when it came to the rushing game?

Sadly only eight teams ranked in the top half of the NFL in rushing. Or to spin it the other way, since only eight rushing team leaders finished here, then that would mean the remaining eight rushing team leaders would have to be part of the worst passing NFL teams. Based on this, you could reason that the strength of the passing game is of no consequence to the running game.

Additionally, if we set our bar a little higher - say the top 10 passing teams and the top 10 rushing teams - then only one team accomplished this feat in 2012. One.

Hardly a convincing number to justify such a claim that a good passing game opens up the running game. Even more so if you rely on this philosophy to rest your fantasy hopes on the next less-than-elite RB from an up-and-coming passing team.

Plus, this isn’t just an anomaly from 2012 to disprove the passing-opens-up–the-run theory. The statistics from previous seasons will also bear this out. In recent seasons past, you would see statistically that heavy passing teams do not necessarily have superior running games. And just as with our 2012 results, even if these NFL passing teams do have better run-games, not many have a dominant RB.

But you can chose to dismiss the evidence. Many do when it comes to theories.

 

[TREFF]

I remember this debate from "over there" last year. My position on it hasn't changed.
Over the course of a full season, theres no arguing that you're dead right..but, on a week by week basis, when I'm picking between two RB'S for my flex, both facing a better than average rush defense..I'm going with the guy that has the better passing game to keep that eighth man out of the box as often as possible. It's not fool-proof by any means, but for that one singular week that ever so slight difference in what a good passing game can do to keep a D honest, can be the difference between a W and an L.

However, even though I truly believe what I just said, I sure wouldn't draft a guy on a good passing team over a guy on a not so good passing team with that being the entire reasoning. It really only applies in a weekly, cases by case basis.

 

[The Foot]

Joe i choose to believe your theory. The titan's passing Offense is horrible

 

[Barilko]

Joe i choose to believe your theory. The titan's passing Offense is horrible

love it Foot get CJ1.5K into any and all discussions very impressive

 

[Barilko]

Wow Joe great post thanks ill take that to the Canadian bank of knowledge

 

[Barilko]

I remember this debate from "over there" last year. My position on it hasn't changed.
Over the course of a full season, theres no arguing that you're dead right..but, on a week by week basis, when I'm picking between two RB'S for my flex, both facing a better than average rush defense..I'm going with the guy that has the better passing game to keep that eighth man out of the box as often as possible. It's not fool-proof by any means, but for that one singular week that ever so slight difference in what a good passing game can do to keep a D honest, can be the difference between a W and an L.

However, even though I truly believe what I just said, I sure wouldn't draft a guy on a good passing team over a guy on a not so good passing team with that being the entire reasoning. It really only applies in a weekly, cases by case basis.

Great reply for an intriguing observation

 

[TREFF]

Great reply for an intriguing observation

Well when Joe busts out the numbers...you gotta find an interesting angle to come from ; )

 

[wilwhite]

A rushing game is what it is; sometimes bad, sometimes ordinary, sometimes great. The question is whether improving the passing game (by upgrading at QB or acquiring/developing better receivers) helps out a particular RB.

Will Charles improve with a better QB? Will Rice be worse with the loss of Boldin and Pitta? Will Ridley suffer without Gronk, Hernandez and Welker? Will Forte benefit from a better passing scheme?

A pass-oriented team is going to have fewer carries, so we should look at YPC anyway as the measure, not total rushing yards. So does an improvement to the passing game raise the rushing YPC? Can we test that theory anywhere?

I can come up with a few recent test cases. One is last year's Seahawks (in the first half Wilson was a 59% passer with 6.7 yards per attempt; in the second half he was a 67% passer with 9.0 yards per attempt). Others are Willis McGahee with Peyton at QB instead of Tebow, AP with Favre instead of Frerotte/Tavaris, Forte with the addition of Marshall.

So with an improved passing game, did the rushing YPC go up, down, or stay about the same?

Stay tuned.....

 

[tlance]

Fantasy Football Fallacy - Does a good passing game really open up the running game?

Many fantasy owners truly believe this is the case. It's a philosophy that must appear to be true since so many use the statement in reasoning out their projections. Consequently, fantasy owners will pin their hopes on a less-than-elite fantasy player because they believe that the off-season changes made by that NFL team will translate into a better passing game, which will then improve the run game.

However the statistics may not support this theory, particularly from a fantasy perspective. As evidence, consider the top HALF of the NFL from 2012. Below are the top 16 (half of the NFL) passing team leaders from 2012. Adjacent is the team rushing rank.

1) New Orleans had the best passing offense. But ranked 25 in rushing.
2) Detroit was next. Ranked 23 in rushing.
3) Dallas. Ranked 31 in rushing.
4) New England. Ranked 7 in rushing. Steven Ridley led the team with 1263 yards and ranked 7 among rushing leaders.
5) Denver. Ranked 16 in rushing.
6) Atlanta. Ranked 29 in rushing.
7) Indianapolis. Ranked 22 in rushing.
8) Oakland. Ranked 28 in rushing.
9) Green Bay. Ranked 20 in rushing..
10) Tampa Bay. Ranked 15 in rushing. Doug Martin led the team with 1454 yards and ranked 5 among rushing leaders.
11) Houston. Ranked 8 in rushing. Arian Foster led the team with 1424 yards and ranked 6 among rushing leaders.
12) Giants. Ranked 14 in rushing.
13) Philadelphia. Ranked 13 in rushing.
14) Pittsburgh. Ranked 26 in rushing.
15) Baltimore. Ranked 11 in rushing.
16) Carolina. Ranked 9 in rushing. Cam Newton led the team in rushing with 741 yards and ranked 24 among rushing leaders.

Let's put the list above into perspective.

First of all, it contains the top half of the NFL passing leaders. But should we consider teams that rank 13 or worse to be of the passing elite? Generally not. As proof, just consider the current fantasy rankings of the QB from the teams ranked 11-15. Not too many fantasy owners are sold on Schaub, Eli, Flacco or Big Ben. (And Carolina is a whole other story since Newton was both the passing and rushing leader.)

It's fair to say then, that considering 16 teams is more than a generous gauge to determine whether a good passing game will open up the running game. So how did these 16 teams fair when it came to the rushing game?

Sadly only eight teams ranked in the top half of the NFL in rushing. Or to spin it the other way, since only eight rushing team leaders finished here, then that would mean the remaining eight rushing team leaders would have to be part of the worst passing NFL teams. Based on this, you could reason that the strength of the passing game is of no consequence to the running game.

Additionally, if we set our bar a little higher - say the top 10 passing teams and the top 10 rushing teams - then only one team accomplished this feat in 2012. One.

Hardly a convincing number to justify such a claim that a good passing game opens up the running game. Even more so if you rely on this philosophy to rest your fantasy hopes on the next less-than-elite RB from an up-and-coming passing team.

Plus, this isn’t just an anomaly from 2012 to disprove the passing-opens-up–the-run theory. The statistics from previous seasons will also bear this out. In recent seasons past, you would see statistically that heavy passing teams do not necessarily have superior running games. And just as with our 2012 results, even if these NFL passing teams do have better run-games, not many have a dominant RB.

But you can chose to dismiss the evidence. Many do when it comes to theories.

Very good points, however I will be interested to see what Wil's analysis brings. Since these ranks are based on yardage, it only makes sense that highly ranked passing teams will suffer when it comes to their rushing rank. If a team throws the ball 65% of the time, it makes sense that they would rank low in rushing, even if those rushing attempts are pretty efficient.

Also, passing efficiency may be a better measure than yardage. The Redskins, 49ers and Seahawks all passed far more efficiently than some on the teams on this list, but the heavy volume, low efficiency teams like the Raiders will beat them in yardage every time.

The real question is does the efficient passing attack lead to greater scoring opportunity in terms of fantasy?

Here is a look at the top 10 ranked fantasy RBs (in no particular order) and whether or not their team has an efficient passing attack:

AP- No
Foster- Yes- above average in terms of efficiency
Martin- No- Freeman was slightly below average
Rice- No- Flacco really wasn't that good. It is shocking how much $ he got.
Lynch- Yes- Wilson among the most efficient in the game
Spiller- No
Charles- No
Richardson- No
Morris- Yes
McCoy- No

Wow. only 3 out of 10. Maybe you are right Joe.

 

[The Foot]

Joe this is a great point you make and I think for the most part it is the assumption that a good passing game will help out a runner. I think you have proved that is not the case here. Nice work buddy. I also think and this might be obvious but a good runner is directly linked to the type of Oline he has. Like I said it's not an innovative new theory like Joe's but just throwing it out there.

 

[TREFF]

AP- No
Foster- Yes- above average in terms of efficiency
Martin- No- Freeman was slightly below average
Rice- No- Flacco really wasn't that good. It is shocking how much $ he got.
Lynch- Yes- Wilson among the most efficient in the game
Spiller- No
Charles- No
Richardson- No
Morris- Yes
McCoy- No .

Here's what I find interesting..and its hard to really explain, or provide solid, number based evidence to hack it up...but..a good passing game or even one thats simply efficient isn't what I look for..its the threat of that big game changing play through the air. Those big time WR's who, although the QB might not be great, demand constant extra attention from a defense because of the threat they present to blowing the top off.

AP- No-- the man is simply not of this earth
Foster- Yes- efficient or not, Schuab to Johnson is dangerous at all times..defenses must respect it
Martin-not efficient..but Freeman to Jackson akso dangerous at all times and defenses must respect it.
Rice- Not efficient, but again..Boldin and Smith always a threat that must be accounted for
Lynch- efficient, no actual big threat in the pass game, but efficiency creates an overall threat.
Spiller- No, an annomyly to my theory
Charles- No, and another one
Richardson- No, yet another (although they almost had one by years end)
Morris- efficiency, plus RGIII was an entirely different threat that needed to be accounted for
McCoy- Not efficient, but DJAX and Maclin could score nearly every time they touched the ball.

So only three of the top nine don't subscribe to my theory, and Peterson needs a visit from Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones.

I dunno, numbers say one story, but numbers dont always tell the whole story I guess is what I'm getting at.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

the question is not about the elite passing teams, it is about teams that usually have leads going into the 4th quarter... Football has become a passing game over a rushing game, so most of the best teams are pass first teams... the teams with losing records and have good passing games often get the high passing numbers because they are behind and need chunks of yardage quickly... I would rather take a RB from a top team than a bad team(as long as the RBs are similar).

 

[tlance]

Here's what I find interesting..and its hard to really explain, or provide solid, number based evidence to hack it up...but..a good passing game or even one thats simply efficient isn't what I look for..its the threat of that big game changing play through the air. Those big time WR's who, although the QB might not be great, demand constant extra attention from a defense because of the threat they present to blowing the top off.

AP- No-- the man is simply not of this earth
Foster- Yes- efficient or not, Schuab to Johnson is dangerous at all times..defenses must respect it
Martin-not efficient..but Freeman to Jackson akso dangerous at all times and defenses must respect it.
Rice- Not efficient, but again..Boldin and Smith always a threat that must be accounted for
Lynch- efficient, no actual big threat in the pass game, but efficiency creates an overall threat.
Spiller- No, an annomyly to my theory
Charles- No, and another one
Richardson- No, yet another (although they almost had one by years end)
Morris- efficiency, plus RGIII was an entirely different threat that needed to be accounted for
McCoy- Not efficient, but DJAX and Maclin could score nearly every time they touched the ball.

So only three of the top nine don't subscribe to my theory, and Peterson needs a visit from Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones.

I dunno, numbers say one story, but numbers dont always tell the whole story I guess is what I'm getting at.

Interesting.

What would be fun is to monitor these RBs based on per game stats this season and see if there is any correlation. Is it possible that Spiller and TRich are overhyped because of the promise of volume? I have a hard time getting fully behind RBs tied to bad offenses, although I really like these two guys.

Also, now that Alex Smith and Andy Reid are in KC, I think the dynamic will lead to a respectable passing game, maybe similar to Houston's?

 

[Sam Sportboy]

Fantasy Football Fallacy - Does a good passing game really open up the running game?


1) New Orleans had the best passing offense. But ranked 25 in rushing.
2) Detroit was next. Ranked 23 in rushing.
3) Dallas. Ranked 31 in rushing.
4) New England. Ranked 7 in rushing. Steven Ridley led the team with 1263 yards and ranked 7 among rushing leaders.
5) Denver. Ranked 16 in rushing.
6) Atlanta. Ranked 29 in rushing.
7) Indianapolis. Ranked 22 in rushing.
8) Oakland. Ranked 28 in rushing.
9) Green Bay. Ranked 20 in rushing..
10) Tampa Bay. Ranked 15 in rushing. Doug Martin led the team with 1454 yards and ranked 5 among rushing leaders.
11) Houston. Ranked 8 in rushing. Arian Foster led the team with 1424 yards and ranked 6 among rushing leaders.
12) Giants. Ranked 14 in rushing.
13) Philadelphia. Ranked 13 in rushing.
14) Pittsburgh. Ranked 26 in rushing.
15) Baltimore. Ranked 11 in rushing.
16) Carolina. Ranked 9 in rushing. Cam Newton led the team in rushing with 741 yards and ranked 24 among rushing leaders.

At work and don't have the time but one point I didn't see was look at the personel from these 16 teams.....especially 1-3 and 5-9. When I get a chance I will elaborate.

 

[Sam Sportboy]

BTW, I love that the traffic is picking up in here and at first impression I would say the conversations will be better than in the other place.

 

[wilwhite]

Seahawks 2012 (1st half vs. 2nd half)
Lynch went from 4.76 YPC to 5.34
Turbin went from 4.30 YPC to 4.50 YPC

McGahee 2011 vs. 2012 (from Tebow to Peyton)
Dropped from 4.82 YPC to 4.37

AP 2008 vs. 2009 (from Frerotte/Tavaris to Favre)
Dropped from 4.85 YPC to 4.40

Forte 2011 vs. 2012 (adding a legit WR threat in Marshall)
Dropped from 4.91 YPC to 4.41

Small sample, but still doesn't encourage the idea that improvements in the passing game (or even better deep threats) opens up the running game. Maybe you can discard McGahee for being past his prime, but you'd think Favre throwing would have opened things up for AP.

Forte is even more of a surprise, because adding Marshall was the only noticeable change coming into last year, and seemed to hurt rather than help.

Better passing sure seemed to help Lynch, though.

 

[tlance]

Seahawks 2012 (1st half vs. 2nd half)
Lynch went from 4.76 YPC to 5.34
Turbin went from 4.30 YPC to 4.50 YPC

McGahee 2011 vs. 2012 (from Tebow to Peyton)
Dropped from 4.82 YPC to 4.37

AP 2008 vs. 2009 (from Frerotte/Tavaris to Favre)
Dropped from 4.85 YPC to 4.40

Forte 2011 vs. 2012 (adding a legit WR threat in Marshall)
Dropped from 4.91 YPC to 4.41

Small sample, but still doesn't encourage the idea that improvements in the passing game (or even better deep threats) opens up the running game. Maybe you can discard McGahee for being past his prime, but you'd think Favre throwing would have opened things up for AP.

Forte is even more of a surprise, because adding Marshall was the only noticeable change coming into last year, and seemed to hurt rather than help.

Better passing sure seemed to help Lynch, though.

I think Treff is on to something. These numbers don't tell the whole story, but there has to be a threat level that is perceived by the defense, whether real or imagined. Running QBs (even Tebow) do represent threats that the defense has to account for. Also, like others have mentioned, line play is pretty important for everyone not named AP.

Lastly, I believe what Sam was alluding to was that teams 1-9 (aside from NE) didn't have a competent RB on their roster. DMC is competent, but not in a zone blocking scheme.