Say What?!?!?!

[hiwaygal]

Ultimately this may need to be moved to the general footall forum, but I found it VERY interesting...and good discussion fodder

From: New York Jets, Philadelphia Eagles, Pittsburgh Steelers can blame their weak running games for their losses - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

I like Rex Ryan. Really, I do. He’s good for the Jets. He’s good for football. Let him talk all he wants. It’s about time the NFL had a coach whose mouth matched his girth.
But his real conceit — not to mention the prima facie evidence that Roger Goodell’s people aren’t doing nearly enough to drug-test coaches — isn’t declaring the Jets as front-runners for the Super Bowl. Rather, it’s expecting the Jets to go to the Super Bowl with this dog-ass excuse for a running game.

It’s not just Ryan and the Jets, either. The league hasn’t become merely pass-happy. Coaches and coordinators have somehow accepted the idea that the running game itself is archaic. Now I’ll concede that its language is archaic. From Vince Lombardi’s Power Sweep to Bill Parcells’ Smashmouth brand to Ryan’s erstwhile ideal, the Ground and Pound, they’re all euphemisms for “three yards and a cloud of dust.” That’s not what you envision in this, the Joystick Era, in which flesh and blood players are supposed to move like computer-generated protagonists in a “Madden” video game.

Yes, the game has changed. Indeed, running backs seem more expendable than ever. But it’s still football. Now as ever: You can’t win if you can’t run.

Consider Sunday in evidence. There were 15 games. By my math, the team that ran for more yards won 11 of them.

Yes, the Cardinals lost to the Giants despite outrushing them. But if not for a gift call on a 19-yard completion late in the game — “We got a break on that one,” conceded Eli Manning — Arizona would’ve won.

Denver outrushed Green Bay by 8 yards. But the gap between those teams is such that one shouldn’t make too much of it. I mean, who cares if Willis McGahee runs for 103 yards? The score was 42-17 after three quarters.

Then, the two final anomalies: Detroit over Dallas and the Chiefs over the Vikings. I would suggest that these outcomes had as much to do with the star-crossed karmas of the losing quarterbacks — Donovan McNabb and Tony Romo — as any other factor.
Then again, if Romo had any kind of running game, he wouldn’t have to be throwing interceptions with a big second-half lead.

Every other game served as proof of the can’t-run-can’t-win theorem. Start with the Bears over the Panthers. Cam Newton put up another 374 yards. Great story. But do you really want a rookie — any rookie — throwing 46 times? No, you’d rather tell Mike Martz to put away his run-n-shoot fantasy playbook. Matt Forte — remember him? — ran for 205 yards, and Jay Cutler had to put it up only 17 times. It was as if the Bears finally remembered what they’re supposed to be.

Forte wasn’t alone. The Texans beat the Steelers because Arian Foster ran for 155 yards. Frank Gore — another “remember him?” guy — ran for 127 yards as the Niners beat the Eagles. Michael Vick threw 46 times, as if Andy Reid had stolen Martz’s playbook. Call it another “4-6” defense. And while everybody wants to know what’s wrong with the NFL’s prematurely christened Dream Team, here you go, simple: LeSean McCoy and Ronnie Brown combined for 33 yards rushing.

Elsewhere, Washington beat St. Louis, with Ryan Torain running for 135 yards, and the Bengals upset Buffalo. No surprise in Cincinnati. The Bengals seem to win whenever Cedric Benson manages to gain 100 yards.

Miami is winless because, in large measure, Reggie Bush just can’t run. Ricky Williams was a much more efficient back.

As for the Patriots, there’s an understandable temptation to focus on Tom Brady at the expense of everything else. It’s worth noting — and, yes, the quarterback has something to do with it — that BenJarvus Green-Ellis and rookie Stevan Ridley together ran 172 yards. New England also kept Oakland’s Darren McFadden in check, allowing him a manageable 75 yards.

Which brings me back to Rex Ryan’s squad. The Jets play the Patriots in Foxborough next week. It’s only October, but the hype will feel as dense as December. Still, at 2-2, I just can’t see what the Jets have done to warrant such grand hopes.

Sunday night’s broadcasters would have had you believe that the Jets’ loss to the Ravens was all about the injury to New York’s all-pro center, Nick Mangold. Please. Stop.

Mangold isn’t the reason Shonn Greene gained 23 yards on 10 carries. Greene rumbled for 26 yards (also on 10 carries) when the Jets beat Dallas (or, more accurately, the Cowboys beat themselves). He’s averaging 39 yards a game. He could do that when he ran in a tandem with Thomas Jones and Leon Washington. But now he’s the featured back.

No one knows this better than the GQ model charged with winning a Super Bowl for Ryan. Without a running game, it’s Mark Sanchez who’ll be ground and pounded.

[Riffer X]

Ruh roh Raggy, it is on!!! I will delete the other thread

[Brown Warrior]

Remember that bizarre 23-7 / 7-23 stat for top 10 and bottom 10 QBR I put up? Remember that the top 10 rushing teams are 14-16? Makes the above a little silly, but here's another wild one...

Many statnicks call YPA the single most important stat in football (including Pro Football Outsiders and recently Sam Farmer). Prepare to have your mind blown:

The top five are 16-4:

Brady (3-1)
Rodgers (4-0)
Hasselbeck (3-1)
Manning (3-1)
Schaub (3-1)

The bottom five (excluding one-gamer Gabbert) are 3-16!!!

Collins (0-3, sat last game)
Bradford (0-4)
McNabb (0-4)
Cassel (1-3)
McCoy (2-2)

Unreal stat, man... as far as direct correlation to wins and losses.

[hiwaygal]

Originally Posted by Riffer X

Ruh roh Raggy, it is on!!! I will delete the other thread

Yeah, I figured it would be....but hey, apparently I'm not the only one who things it's not all about passing!

I was talking with someone the other day and they said they heard an interview or something with Marino and maybe Kelly? (not sure who, but it was definitely a HoF caliber retired QB). They were saying that they were shocked at the number of concussions and injuries to QB's these days. They admitted that they could not have survived the game as it is played today.

That started me thinking...well, if (as we are so often told) "it's a passing league" then it sounds like the defenses are starting to react by doing everything they can to take out the QB.

Eventually it's going to catch up to the players and someone is going to have to take a good hard look at options. Running sounds like a good one to me. But that's not to say the game should be one sided - IMO you still need both. A balanced offense will keep defenses honest.

[hiwaygal]

status: mind not blown

[Brown Warrior]

Originally Posted by hiwaygal

status: mind not blown

It's blown. You just don't know it yet. That's the best stat ever put on a message board in the history of computers.

Top 5 running teams: 9-11 overall.

And yes, the best rushing team by yards and YPC (Minnesota) is still winless at 0-4.

And yes, Detroit, 31st in YPC and 29th in total yards... is still undefeated at 4-0. Following the lead of Super Bowl teams in 2008, 2009, and 20011: Arizona, Indy, and Green Bay!

[hiwaygal]

trust me shep, I know myself better than you think you do

status mind still not blown

sorry to bust your bubble but IMO the future of the game is not blond haired, blue eyed California QBs

It's guys like this:

[Brown Warrior]

In your heart, sure... just not in the W/L column.

[hiwaygal]

in reality, perhaps your reading comprehension isn't what it used to be; try reading the OP again:

Consider Sunday in evidence. There were 15 games. By my math, the team that ran for more yards won 11 of them.

I call it a trend, isn't that how you play this game?

[Brown Warrior]

My stats are bigger and better.

Although teams that pass their way to a big lead sometimes run the ball a lot to protect said lead... the truth is that the top passing teams are the top teams period... and the top rushing teams are sub .500 so far this year.

There are teams that can only pass and win... but no teams that can only run and win.

You don't have to like it and I'm not 100% sure I even do. I like seeing different kinds of teams win different kinds of ways... and see what happens when they meet. But all four ESPN guys were discussing how nobody's questioning whether it's a passing league -- dar -- but whether that's really good for the game.

And I don't wanna see it become flag football anymore than you do. I love guys like Hillis. My son was a running back like Hillis before he became strictly a linebacker. But it is what it is and you'll drive yourself mad trying to prove otherwise.

Here's hope for you, though: Philly re-engineered it's defense strictly to stop the pass. Nnamde's looked like shit and their quick little line is getting run all over... and they're 1-3.

[Brown Warrior]

Remember when it was run the ball and stop the run? Well, not only are the top 5 rushing teams 9-11... "stopping the run" doesn't seem to mean much.

Based on Yards Per Carry (allowed), the best of the best are Cincinnati, Dallas, and Seattle! WHOOO!

Meanwhile...

22. New Orleans (3-1)
23. Detroit (4-0)
24. New England (3-1)
26. Buffalo (3-1)

But like I hinted at: I can see a future where defenses are completed architected to stop the pass, with basically four corners and a lot of small, quick pass rushers... and some team runs all over them.

Could happen, but can they keep up on the scoreboard with a high-powered passing team?

[Riffer X]

The game is cyclical and I agree with Shep that right now it is a passing league, but that is a very ambiguous argument I have tried to stay out of. If things keep going at the rate they are with passing, there will be rules changes, trust me. The NFL was not established so that teams could just pass their way to winning, it is not how it was intended.

They changed the rules to help QB's over the years, so IMO they will change them back if things keep going ballistic with passing.