Another pissing match

[Masters]

And Shaw just made the same mistake you make. He compared top running backs to passing game. One there is individual performance and one is a unit (QR+WR+TE+RB). 4 of the top 10 running games made the playoffs last year (5 of the top 10 passing games made the playoffs, two of which had top 10 running games). The year before 5 of the top 10 running games made the playoffs (7 of top 10 passing games made the playoffs, two of which also had top 10 running games). The year before that 6 of the top 10 running games made the playoffs (4 of the top 10 passing games made the playoffs).

Count the number of QBs in top 10 passing yards who had losing seasons or found themselves at home.

Interestingly enough for the last 3 seasons the #1 passing team in the league has found themselves sitting at home. The #1 rushing team in the league each of the past 3 seasons has found themselves in the playoffs.

[Brown Warrior]

I'll try not to get drawn in again... but my numbers were WAY more profound. Especially when you wrap your mind around the Super Bowl contenders (Cards, Colts, last year's Chargers, Packers, Patriots) who have won with truly great quarterbacks and either a lame running game or a decent one with a bunch of interchangeable no-names.

The Saints put together a decent running game with any of a dozen backs benefitting from defenses focusing where anybody would: on Brees.

But strangely, somewhere in here I think we could find agreement. It's clearly a quarterback driven league but you still have to be able to run the ball at least decently and do so somewhat stubbornly. It's really more about the line and system and defenses focusing on the great quarterbacks than the back (Starks, this year's Colts UDFA rookie, Ben Tate, etc.), further devaluing backs. But that's not the same as saying running doesn't matter at all.

However: Teams that can pass really well but not run can win. Teams that run really well but can't pass draft really high and go after a franchise QB.

At some point, you gotta stop saying every single beat writer in Cleveland, in America, and on Earth is wrong (including some noted stat freaks) and consider that it's true: It's a passing league.

[Masters]

Great (or even really good) QBs don't always equal great passing games, by yardage (last years Charges sat at home, so don't know why you'd want to bring them up). Great QB play is not the same as great passing team, from a slinging it around the yard stand point. Great QB play is measured by your favorite stat, the QBR. QBR is not a meassure of how much your team passes the ball, it's a measure of how effecient your QB is when he passes, be it 20 times for 40 times (you can post a great QBR while only throwing for 150 yards, see Alex Smith).

I don't argue it a QB driven league. It's that on many levels.

I have said over, and over, and over, and over again the notion of a single great RB is mostly done with in the NFL. Teams are going with two and three back running by committee. You've got to change the pace, even in the running game to keeps defenses honest.

Teams that pass really well but can't run have the same chance of making the playoffs as teams that can run really well but can't pass. The numbers show it as about a 50/50 chance.

At some point you got to quit regergatating what you heard or read somewhere and look at the actual details yourself (taking an opinion writer or person paid to give an opinions word as fact is plain silly as it's still opinions, not facts). There has yet to be a "stat" freak that has put out anything which actually shows it as a passing league. What they show it as is a QB driven league where good QB play is hugely important today. No one argues against that concept. But good QB play doesn't equal slinging the ball around all day, which is what the term "passing league" implies.

[Brown Warrior]

Dude, you were so close before the demeaning last paragraph. I know you're smart enough to know how smart I am, or hope you are, so in a way you insult us both when you descend to that level. You and I are both capable of having a dignified, adult conversation.

I do love QBR over raw yardage, but raw yardage used to be a sign of desperation. Now the top teams and teams with the most passing yards are lining up way better. Teams with tons of rushing yards are general AKA teams lacking a great quarterback, or a team nurturing a youngster at QB. Aside from Oakland and last year's Chiefs team (one and done, ugly, now dead), I don't see teams "running to win" in today's league.

Let's assume for a beat that Green Bay and New Orleans are the model teams in the NFC, with Detroit as Team Next. In the AFC, it's murkier, but the perennial contenders are San Diego, Pittsburgh, New England, Baltimore, and Indy (hiccup-ed this year because of Manning injury). I do believe San Diego bears mention because they win every year.

It certainly supports our agreement about "franchise backs," because there are literally none to be found in that entire group, which is a bit startling in and of itself. Ray Rice is the top dog pretty easily. Meanwhile, many of those teams are literally carried by their QB and passing game.

The quarterbacks are Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Stafford, Flacco, and Sanchez. I think Flacco is WAY underrated based on his numbers and has a shot at his first Super Bowl this year, given Pittsburgh's age. Sanchez is very gradually being elevated to The Guy... and if he can't get there, neither can the Jets. Plus they need to rush the passer without gimmicks at some point.

The others are superstars. I think Stafford is nothing short of that tag if he stays healthy. He's that good. When they aren't exploding passing records for QBR and yardage, it's Cam Newton doing it.

But again: I think we're closer to agreement than it seems.

[Masters]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

Dude, you were so close before the demeaning last paragraph. I know you're smart enough to know how smart I am, or hope you are, so in a way you insult us both when you descend to that level. You and I are both capable of having a dignified, adult conversation.

Hang on here, what I said was as demaning as you closing with "At some point, you gotta stop saying every single beat writer in Cleveland, in America, and on Earth is wrong (including some noted stat freaks) and consider that it's true: It's a passing league. "

Quit playing the victim card. You got exactly back what you gave.

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

I do love QBR over raw yardage, but raw yardage used to be a sign of desperation. Now the top teams and teams with the most passing yards are lining up way better. Teams with tons of rushing yards are general AKA teams lacking a great quarterback, or a team nurturing a youngster at QB. Aside from Oakland and last year's Chiefs team (one and done, ugly, now dead), I don't see teams "running to win" in today's league.

They are lining up, just as I just showed. With basically half of the top passing teams making the playoffs, just like half the top running teams.

Jets, Ravens, NO (ranked higher in running than passing when they won the SB), PIT, PHI (last year), NE, ATL (not running is why they are now losing), are all running to win. Notice two of those teams are in CLE division. No one is saying all you have to do is run to win. That would be the same bad statement as saying all you have to do is pass to win. You need to be able to run, pass, play D, and play STs to win, especially to in consistently.

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

Let's assume for a beat that Green Bay and New Orleans are the model teams in the NFC, with Detroit as Team Next. In the AFC, it's murkier, but the perennial contenders are San Diego, Pittsburgh, New England, Baltimore, and Indy (hiccup-ed this year because of Manning injury). I do believe San Diego bears mention because they win every year.

It certainly supports our agreement about "franchise backs," because there are literally none to be found in that entire group, which is a bit startling in and of itself. Ray Rice is the top dog pretty easily. Meanwhile, many of those teams are literally carried by their QB and passing game.

The quarterbacks are Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Stafford, Flacco, and Sanchez. I think Flacco is WAY underrated based on his numbers and has a shot at his first Super Bowl this year, given Pittsburgh's age. Sanchez is very gradually being elevated to The Guy... and if he can't get there, neither can the Jets. Plus they need to rush the passer without gimmicks at some point.

Let's see there, so Brady's team generally has a top 10 running game (and did for all their SB wins), Brees had running game ranked higher than their passing game when they won it all, and Sanchez has had his running game carry him. GB got into the playoffs and got threw the playoffs by recommitting to running th ball.

Rivers I think is way over rated. He gets away with a ton because of his arm and also gets his team beat because of his mistakes. Jets are gonna hurt themselves the same way ATL is hurting themselve right now, even more so because Sanchez isn't have the actual QB Ryan is.

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

The others are superstars. I think Stafford is nothing short of that tag if he stays healthy. He's that good. When they aren't exploding passing records for QBR and yardage, it's Cam Newton doing it.

But again: I think we're closer to agreement than it seems.

We fully agree on requiring good QB play. The league has never been so full of top flight QBs at one time like it is right now who are very efficient and can burn a D.

I don't read much into the yardage being set 3 weeks into a season that comes off of no offseason. Defenses are behind and there are more injuries than ever (there is a record being broken as well). So what has happened this young season will mean nothing unless its happening again next year, and the year after.

QBR records falling are in part because of the number of great QBs all playing at one time right now. QBR though is still a measure of QB effeciency. There are some extreamly effecient QBs playing today.

I am dropping this as it doesn't belong in this thread (hopefully a mod will be kind enough to remove and got stuff into some other thread - sorry guys)

[Brown Warrior]

I'm too lazy to go back and show you the amazing correlation between QBR and winning over the past five years -- it's stunning, and then Peter King ripped me off -- and the almost equally surprising LACK of correlation between top running backs and winning.

I do realize we've already agreed on that second one. And I think we agree that the league has more terrific (and efficient) passers than at any time in memory. But the top of the league, the teams that win year after year, the team winning championships, are all about the quarterbacks and the passing game.

Sure, it's easy to run when you always take leads because you have Brady, Rodgers, Brees, etc. But it's tough to make the case that those guys are great passers because of their "great running games." It's like saying college spread offenses succeed because of those backs averaging 7 yards a carry... when it fact it's the opposite: Just like nobody's defending Danny Woodhead, nobody gave a shit about Missouri's RB the year Chase Daniel threw for 152 TDs or whatever.

The running game (with it's plug-and-play personnel) exists in service to the passing game now.

NOTE: It's not me playing the victim card, which is like slapping someone and rolling your eyes that they say "Hey!" It's that the last paragraph was so below the rest of the post, including the word regurgitate. Skip that. Resist!

[Masters]

Poorly titled thread :-( No one is arguing against the importance of a QB

[BernietheKid]

How about that, Is that more fitting? Or should it be called ?

[Masters]

There is no need to pull the old King article. No one disagrees that QBR is tied to winning teams. That's not just recently.

The teams that win year after year, are winning championships, are not all about the passing game. They are about D, then balance on O. Look at your last super bowl winners:

GB - top of the league D, was on the outside looking in for playoffs until they recommitted to the run, their running game got them past one of their toughest hurdles in the playoffs, and a top notch passing game

NO - top of the league D in forcing turn overs and a running game ranked higher than its passing attack, and a top notch passing attack

PIT - top of the league D, solid running game, and a decent passing game that comes up when needed.

NYG - top of the league D, top of the league running game, and a decent passing game.

No one is saying a running game is making some of those QBs great passers. But we are talking what for teams equals winning. All those guys can sling it around well and win some games by doing so. But they aren't winning anything of significance w/o D and a complimentary running game. Bringing up college is just a poor analogy. CFB and NFL are apples and bricks.

Running game services the pass and the pass services the run. The go hand in hand. One may get more than the other based on who you play on a given week and what O you run.

It's you playing the victim card when you decide to scold me for "dameaning" when it was in response to your own "demeaning" last paragraph. Or maybe you aren't smart enough to know how smart I am and think the snarkyness and talking down to me with "At some point, you gotta stop saying every single beat writer in Cleveland, in America, and on Earth is wrong (including some noted stat freaks) and consider that it's true: It's a passing league. " went right over my head. Frankly if using regurgitate offends you I think you need to go look up the meaning of that word (to become thrown or poured back, which is exactly what you do with "experts" opinions").

[Masters]

Originally Posted by BernietheKid

How about that, Is that more fitting? Or should it be called ?

I was only kidding, but yeah, probably does fit it

[BernietheKid]

Originally Posted by Masters

I was only kidding, but yeah, probably does fit it

Good as long as it fits!

[YtownBacker]

It might be a "passing league" but you have to be able to play defense to win consistently. That said, even the most pass happy teams run the ball over 40% of the time.

So, we are back to where this conversation should be. It's a team game and you have to be able to perform on both sides of the ball. Offenses require balance to be effective.

The new catch phrase may be "Passing League" but you better be able to run the ball also. Passing league to me say teams are throwing 80% of the time not 55% which is close to norm.

There is a reason defensive players flood the top of draft boards every year. Yes, it's a passing league but teams win by playing defense to stop those passing teams. There are very few exceptions. Good teams with good QBs win by stopping other teams from scoring and while being able to score themselves. If it was just a passing league it would be called Arena Football and every Sunday you would see teams winning 52 to 48.

If you can't do it all chances are you will be sent home early.