Stats the correlate well with scoring

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Net yards per pass play (accounting for incompletions and yards lost to sacks). Best.

    What does this all mean?  Well first, the tradition of measuring offenses and defenses by total yards does make sense, since total yards does correlate well with scoring.  Second--and more significant--the high scoring teams are almost always high in net yards per pass play, while the lowest scoring teams almost always have low net yards per pass play.  This suggests that the key to scoring on offense is to have a highly efficient passing game.  Throwing a lot isn't necessary.  But getting at least 6.0 and ideally close to (or more than) 7.0 net yards on your passing plays is critical. Net passing yards below 6.0 almost always means you are in the bottom of the league in scoring. 

    Statistically at least, an efficient passing game makes a productive offense. 

     

    Note:  The "net yards per pass play" statistic is not one generally included in the stats summaries published by the various sports news outlets.  Instead, most news outlets include "average yards per pass."  The reported average is basically receiving yards divided by pass attempts.  This accounts for incompletions, but not sacks.  I calculate net yards per pass play by (1) subtracting yards lost to sacks from the receiving yards number--this equals the widely reported net passing yard number. Then (2), I divide this by the sum of pass attempts plus times sacked.  Baisically, the reported average ignores sacks, but my stat includes them as passing plays.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Net yards per pass play needs to account for interceptions.  Throwing eight bombs and getting three quick touchdowns and two interceptions isn't winning football, although it scores quickly (or you get the ball back extra times after the pick-sixes.)

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I see the data but I disagree with on general thing and that's the run-pass doesn't correlate.

    In general I agree it's doesn't correlate in a direct manner however there are some variables not accounted for:

    • High scoring teams tend to pass more and also tend to have higher amounts of possessions because of the higher number of passes. More possessions give more oppertunity to score in general so games tend to be higher scoring as a whole for both teams.
    • Bad teams tend to fall behind so they tend to have to pass more and of course bad teams don't score well so it's a skewed stat.
    • High running teams tend to have less possessions per game so obviously less chances to score, however, the other team also tends to have less chances to score too so in general lower scoring games.

    So as much as you run can and general does affect the amount of possible scoring by limiting possessions and chances to score in general. Bad teams that are forced to become one dimensional then further skew the stat because they are forced into a single dimension limiting their ability to score.

    However, I would love to see the stat of points per series of each 3 phases. I would wager those who are to one extreme or the other tend to have a lower point per series average than those with balance. This is mainly due to the ability of a D to concentrate on a single aspect or have to worry about multiple issues. I'm willing to be those with more balanced run games (with good QB's) tend to see a bump in completion %, ypc, and net yards per play while also reducing lost yards and sacks.

    [/QUOTE]

    Excellent post PatsEng~

    ALL:

    For once and for all, I wish we could simply ALL agree to Agree that:

    On Offense-  At least the capability to THREATEN balance, And the proficiency to execute balance, and the and the proficiency to be capable of dictating balance by having the: know-how to Be schematically/on day game calling/personell-wise versatile, To execute this, Can-NOT be undermined nor undervalued...

    And I really do believe it to be in that order of importance:  Some people say ya need the stars and A+ personell...others take it a step further and say ya need the gamecalling (pass-run ratio), and for me, like at least some others, I will always believe that:  Schematic versatility to at least THREATEN duality and balance to your game...through the Greatest NUMBER of capabilities to offer up either a threatenable Run (anyway, anywhere, anyhow), +  offer up EQUALLY a threatenable Pass (anyway, anyhow, anywhere), On Any & Every given snap...WILL supercede the likes of:  ANY form of the lesser Duality...i.e. "More threatenable traits towards the 1 dimensionable...and the 1 dimensionable to a certain place/in a certain instance/to a certain player, etc., etc., etc). 

    It seems BB LOVES this too...In theory.  And ostensibly he goes to noticeably pretty ridiculous ends to attempt to attain this...in theory.  Yet, in reality...At least in every Season Ender/Ticket Home Game, I can recall since, and including 2007-on up...It SureTH appears that when NE loses the aforementioned, above focus, i.e. to sustainably threaten duality of Run...And Pass...to any one...at any time...towards any directional "where", NE:  Either Falls behind & Loses...or just Loses.

    Gimme calm balance, to be able to dictate flow and tempo, and to be able to threaten from any where, any how, in the most & greatest number of balanced/versatile/"completest towards any & all aspects of field play" Total # of ways...  All  Day  Long.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to Paul_K's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Net yards per pass play (accounting for incompletions and yards lost to sacks). Best.

    What does this all mean?  Well first, the tradition of measuring offenses and defenses by total yards does make sense, since total yards does correlate well with scoring.  Second--and more significant--the high scoring teams are almost always high in net yards per pass play, while the lowest scoring teams almost always have low net yards per pass play.  This suggests that the key to scoring on offense is to have a highly efficient passing game.  Throwing a lot isn't necessary.  But getting at least 6.0 and ideally close to (or more than) 7.0 net yards on your passing plays is critical. Net passing yards below 6.0 almost always means you are in the bottom of the league in scoring. 

    Statistically at least, an efficient passing game makes a productive offense. 

     

    Note:  The "net yards per pass play" statistic is not one generally included in the stats summaries published by the various sports news outlets.  Instead, most news outlets include "average yards per pass."  The reported average is basically receiving yards divided by pass attempts.  This accounts for incompletions, but not sacks.  I calculate net yards per pass play by (1) subtracting yards lost to sacks from the receiving yards number--this equals the widely reported net passing yard number. Then (2), I divide this by the sum of pass attempts plus times sacked.  Baisically, the reported average ignores sacks, but my stat includes them as passing plays.

     

     



    Net yards per pass play needs to account for interceptions.  Throwing eight bombs and getting three quick touchdowns and two interceptions isn't winning football, although it scores quickly (or you get the ball back extra times after the pick-sixes.)

     

     



    He's not saying it's a REAL predicitive model...it's not useful for that at all...it's a pretty good eyeball test for actual, or ex post facto, results, nothing more....you COULD put a very detailed "game theory" model together for pro football fairly easily because you have the down, distance, and formation information for every offensive and defensive play the league has ever played...you'd have to create legitimate algorithms for a number of potential variables realted to sacks, interceptions, QB pressures, under center snaps, shotgun snaps, special team plays, formations used, an entire host of variables depending upon your hypothesis.....it would get very complicated but there are numerous tests to see if the variables are legitimate...as well as the final resulting coefficients...somewhere, I'm sure there is some Nate Silver-like dude running one for the gambling books in Vegas...it would be highly predictive of outcome.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Paul_K's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Net yards per pass play (accounting for incompletions and yards lost to sacks). Best.

    What does this all mean?  Well first, the tradition of measuring offenses and defenses by total yards does make sense, since total yards does correlate well with scoring.  Second--and more significant--the high scoring teams are almost always high in net yards per pass play, while the lowest scoring teams almost always have low net yards per pass play.  This suggests that the key to scoring on offense is to have a highly efficient passing game.  Throwing a lot isn't necessary.  But getting at least 6.0 and ideally close to (or more than) 7.0 net yards on your passing plays is critical. Net passing yards below 6.0 almost always means you are in the bottom of the league in scoring. 

    Statistically at least, an efficient passing game makes a productive offense. 

     

    Note:  The "net yards per pass play" statistic is not one generally included in the stats summaries published by the various sports news outlets.  Instead, most news outlets include "average yards per pass."  The reported average is basically receiving yards divided by pass attempts.  This accounts for incompletions, but not sacks.  I calculate net yards per pass play by (1) subtracting yards lost to sacks from the receiving yards number--this equals the widely reported net passing yard number. Then (2), I divide this by the sum of pass attempts plus times sacked.  Baisically, the reported average ignores sacks, but my stat includes them as passing plays.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Net yards per pass play needs to account for interceptions.  Throwing eight bombs and getting three quick touchdowns and two interceptions isn't winning football, although it scores quickly (or you get the ball back extra times after the pick-sixes.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He's not saying it's a REAL predicitive model...it's not useful for that at all...it's a pretty good eyeball test for actual, or ex post facto, results, nothing more....you COULD put a very detailed "game theory" model together for pro football fairly easily because you have the down, distance, and formation information for every offensive and defensive play the league has ever played...you'd have to create legitimate algorithyms for a number of potential variables realted to sacks, interceptions, QB pressures, under center snaps, shotgun snaps, special team plays, formations used, an entire host of variables depending upon your hypothesis.....it would get very complicated but there are numerous tests to see if the variables are legitimate...as well as the final resulting coefficients

    [/QUOTE]

    Voila , the EA Madden Game , lol

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Paul_K's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Net yards per pass play (accounting for incompletions and yards lost to sacks). Best.

    What does this all mean?  Well first, the tradition of measuring offenses and defenses by total yards does make sense, since total yards does correlate well with scoring.  Second--and more significant--the high scoring teams are almost always high in net yards per pass play, while the lowest scoring teams almost always have low net yards per pass play.  This suggests that the key to scoring on offense is to have a highly efficient passing game.  Throwing a lot isn't necessary.  But getting at least 6.0 and ideally close to (or more than) 7.0 net yards on your passing plays is critical. Net passing yards below 6.0 almost always means you are in the bottom of the league in scoring. 

    Statistically at least, an efficient passing game makes a productive offense. 

     

    Note:  The "net yards per pass play" statistic is not one generally included in the stats summaries published by the various sports news outlets.  Instead, most news outlets include "average yards per pass."  The reported average is basically receiving yards divided by pass attempts.  This accounts for incompletions, but not sacks.  I calculate net yards per pass play by (1) subtracting yards lost to sacks from the receiving yards number--this equals the widely reported net passing yard number. Then (2), I divide this by the sum of pass attempts plus times sacked.  Baisically, the reported average ignores sacks, but my stat includes them as passing plays.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Net yards per pass play needs to account for interceptions.  Throwing eight bombs and getting three quick touchdowns and two interceptions isn't winning football, although it scores quickly (or you get the ball back extra times after the pick-sixes.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He's not saying it's a REAL predicitive model...it's not useful for that at all...it's a pretty good eyeball test for actual, or ex post facto, results, nothing more....you COULD put a very detailed "game theory" model together for pro football fairly easily because you have the down, distance, and formation information for every offensive and defensive play the league has ever played...you'd have to create legitimate algorithyms for a number of potential variables realted to sacks, interceptions, QB pressures, under center snaps, shotgun snaps, special team plays, formations used, an entire host of variables depending upon your hypothesis.....it would get very complicated but there are numerous tests to see if the variables are legitimate...as well as the final resulting coefficients

    [/QUOTE]

    Voila , the EA Madden Game , lol

    [/QUOTE]

    Ah...yeah...LMAO!

    I'm willing to bet (no pun intended) Vegas uses some type of modeling at this point to set the odds on every sport...much more complicated than simple Madden games and continually tweaked for accuracy and to change with trends...

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to mellymel3's comment:

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Paul_K's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Net yards per pass play (accounting for incompletions and yards lost to sacks). Best.

    What does this all mean?  Well first, the tradition of measuring offenses and defenses by total yards does make sense, since total yards does correlate well with scoring.  Second--and more significant--the high scoring teams are almost always high in net yards per pass play, while the lowest scoring teams almost always have low net yards per pass play.  This suggests that the key to scoring on offense is to have a highly efficient passing game.  Throwing a lot isn't necessary.  But getting at least 6.0 and ideally close to (or more than) 7.0 net yards on your passing plays is critical. Net passing yards below 6.0 almost always means you are in the bottom of the league in scoring. 

    Statistically at least, an efficient passing game makes a productive offense. 

     

    Note:  The "net yards per pass play" statistic is not one generally included in the stats summaries published by the various sports news outlets.  Instead, most news outlets include "average yards per pass."  The reported average is basically receiving yards divided by pass attempts.  This accounts for incompletions, but not sacks.  I calculate net yards per pass play by (1) subtracting yards lost to sacks from the receiving yards number--this equals the widely reported net passing yard number. Then (2), I divide this by the sum of pass attempts plus times sacked.  Baisically, the reported average ignores sacks, but my stat includes them as passing plays.

     

     



    Net yards per pass play needs to account for interceptions.  Throwing eight bombs and getting three quick touchdowns and two interceptions isn't winning football, although it scores quickly (or you get the ball back extra times after the pick-sixes.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He's not saying it's a REAL predicitive model...it's not useful for that at all...it's a pretty good eyeball test for actual, or ex post facto, results, nothing more....you COULD put a very detailed "game theory" model together for pro football fairly easily because you have the down, distance, and formation information for every offensive and defensive play the league has ever played...you'd have to create legitimate algorithyms for a number of potential variables realted to sacks, interceptions, QB pressures, under center snaps, shotgun snaps, special team plays, formations used, an entire host of variables depending upon your hypothesis.....it would get very complicated but there are numerous tests to see if the variables are legitimate...as well as the final resulting coefficients

    [/QUOTE]

    Voila , the EA Madden Game , lol

    [/QUOTE]

    Ah...yeah...LMAO!

    I'm willing to bet (no pun intended) Vegas uses some type of modeling at this point to set the odds on every sport...much more complicated than simple Madden games and continually tweaked for accuracy and to change with trends...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, and probably with historical models for home and away, weather and injuries. as it is they only get , what? 60%? On a side note, cowherd always says how Gronk is only 1 pt, then he says that the pats probably would have won games with him, well that's at least 2pts, and I think the bookies also set points to get bets. 

    And if I remember there is no running in madden, Rusty would be ppppiiiisssd lol 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Paul_K's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Net yards per pass play (accounting for incompletions and yards lost to sacks). Best.

    What does this all mean?  Well first, the tradition of measuring offenses and defenses by total yards does make sense, since total yards does correlate well with scoring.  Second--and more significant--the high scoring teams are almost always high in net yards per pass play, while the lowest scoring teams almost always have low net yards per pass play.  This suggests that the key to scoring on offense is to have a highly efficient passing game.  Throwing a lot isn't necessary.  But getting at least 6.0 and ideally close to (or more than) 7.0 net yards on your passing plays is critical. Net passing yards below 6.0 almost always means you are in the bottom of the league in scoring. 

    Statistically at least, an efficient passing game makes a productive offense. 

     

    Note:  The "net yards per pass play" statistic is not one generally included in the stats summaries published by the various sports news outlets.  Instead, most news outlets include "average yards per pass."  The reported average is basically receiving yards divided by pass attempts.  This accounts for incompletions, but not sacks.  I calculate net yards per pass play by (1) subtracting yards lost to sacks from the receiving yards number--this equals the widely reported net passing yard number. Then (2), I divide this by the sum of pass attempts plus times sacked.  Baisically, the reported average ignores sacks, but my stat includes them as passing plays.

     

     



    Net yards per pass play needs to account for interceptions.  Throwing eight bombs and getting three quick touchdowns and two interceptions isn't winning football, although it scores quickly (or you get the ball back extra times after the pick-sixes.)

     

     



    He's not saying it's a REAL predicitive model...it's not useful for that at all...it's a pretty good eyeball test for actual, or ex post facto, results, nothing more....you COULD put a very detailed "game theory" model together for pro football fairly easily because you have the down, distance, and formation information for every offensive and defensive play the league has ever played...you'd have to create legitimate algorithms for a number of potential variables realted to sacks, interceptions, QB pressures, under center snaps, shotgun snaps, special team plays, formations used, an entire host of variables depending upon your hypothesis.....it would get very complicated but there are numerous tests to see if the variables are legitimate...as well as the final resulting coefficients...somewhere, I'm sure there is some Nate Silver-like dude running one for the gambling books in Vegas...it would be highly predictive of outcome.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Just looking at simple correlations.  Can't claim causation . . . and I certainly haven't built any kind of predictive model.  And as both Mel and Eng are pointing out there are plenty of variables not considered.  

    In response to Catfish's comments, I did actually calculate a few correlation coefficients (rather than just eyeballing the data).  What I found is that yards per play and net yards per pass play both have very high correlation with offensive points scored (roughly .8 for both). So does number of first downs. Running and passing percentages have very weak correlations with scoring (.1 and -.1, respectively). Things like rushing attempts, rushing yards, yards per run have fairly weak correlation coefficients around .3.  Pass attempts have very low correlation with scoring (around .1), but completion percentage has a high correlation (.7) and passing yards a fairly high correlation (.6).  

    Basically, what I see in the data is that the key to scoring is sustaining long drives.  And sustaining long drives depends heavily on having an efficient passing game.  Not necessarily passing a lot, but getting good net yardage when you do pass.

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    Eng . . . I did a bit more analysis of the 2013 offensive data.  Maybe surprisingly, the correlation between number of drives and offensive scoring is weak.  But this is explained by the fact that number of drives is strongly inversely correlated with time per drive.  So teams with lots of offensive drives are, as expected, having short (measured by TOP/drive) offensive drives.  The correlation with scoring is weak because short (by time) drives are okay if they produce yards (which also correlates highly with scoring points) and not so good if they don't generate yards (which correlates with not scoring). 

    The more I look at the data, the more it becomes clear that yards per play and yards per drive really do matter most when it comes to scoring. (Maybe that's not surprising, but people seem to forget it.) That makes me question two things we hear a lot:

    • Running the ball is necessary to extend drives.  The correlations are actually weak. Passing the ball effectively is much more strongly correlated with extending drives, both in time and yards. Pass plays (even with sacks and incompletions accounted for) produce 50% more yards per play than running plays, and when it comes to sustaining drives and scoring, yards produced per play is what matters most.
    • Bend but don't break defenses are okay. Yards given up (particularly passing yards given up) correlate strongly with scoring, so giving up yards appears to be a dangerous way to live. 

    I won't claim that the data disproves those two things, but it certainly puts them under suspicion. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    For post 9999, I'll just add that I'm not concluding that running can just be ignored.  I do think running serves two important purposes:

    1. It forces the defense to focus on something other than the pass and prevents them from putting just pass defenders on the field.  I doubt, however, you need to run much more than 30% of the time to get this benefit.
    2. I don't know for sure, but I'm going to guess that the probability of getting about 3 to 5 yards on a running play is very high--probably in the 70% to 80% range.  With the pass, the probability of getting 0 or fewer yards (i.e., an incompletion or sack) is fairly high--a bit above 40%. The run is your low risk, low reward option--your cash or short-term bond investment, to use a comparison from finance. The pass is more like your stock investment--more risk, but where you make your money.  You use the run in situations where sure (small) yardage is more important than big yardage.  But if you can't pass effectively, you aren't going to sustain drives or score a lot. The pass is your money play.

    All of this seems consistent with what OCs are doing today--not striving for 50-50 balance, but instead passing nearly 60% of the time. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    A great running game will allow an entirely average "game managing" QB to score points and win a Super Bowl; see Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jim Plunkett, Joe Namath and Jeff Hostetler for examples.

    The lack of a running game can make the greatest QB's of all time flame out and not score.

    The top 12 highest-scoring teams in NFL regular-season history, and how far they went that postseason/

    1. DENVER this past season, 606 points. Postseason result: Played Seattle in the Super Bowl  and LOST.

    2.  NEW ENGLAND 2007 season, 589 points. Result: Lost to NY Giants in Super Bowl 42.

    3. GREEN BAY 2011 season, 560 points. Result: Lost to NY Giants in divisional round.

    4. NEW ENGLAND 2012 season, 557 points. Result: Lost to Baltimore Ravens in AFC Championship Game.

    5. MINNESOTA 1998 season, 556 points. Result: Lost to Atlanta in the NFC Championship Game.

    6.  NEW ORLEANS 2011 season, 547 points. Result: Lost to the 49ers in the NFC divisional round.

    7. WASHINGTON 1983 season, 541 points. Result: Lost to the L.A. Raiders in Super Bowl XVIII.

    8. ST. LOUIS RAMS 2000 season, 540 points. Result: Lost to New Orleans in the  NFC wild-card round.

    —9. ST. LOUIS RAMS 1999 season, 526 points. Result: WON SUPER BOWL XXXIV over Tennessee. Yes, this Rams team was the only one among the top-12 scoring offenses in NFL history that won the Super Bowl that season.

    10. INDIANAPOLIS 2004 season, 522 points. Result: Lost to New England in the AFC divisional round.

    11. NEW ENGLAND 2010 season, 518 points. Result: Lost to NY Jets in the AFC divisional round.

    T12. MIAMI 1984 season, 513 points. Result: Lost to 49ers in Super Bowl XIX.

    T12.  NEW ENGLAND 2011 season, 513 points. Result: Lost to NY Giants in Super Bowl XLVI.

    –And if you go by average points per game, including teams that played 14-game regular-seasons, the highest two seasons in that category during the Super Bowl era would be…

    RAIDERS 1967 AFL season, 468 points (33.4 per, would rank 9th by average). Result: Lost to Green Bay in Super Bowl II.

    RAIDERS 1968 AFL season, 453 points (32.4 per, would rank 14th by average). Result: Lost to NY Jets in AFL conference championship.

    All in all, 10 teams among NFL’s top-20 all-time scoring offenses (I only listed the top 14 here) got to the Super Bowl that season.

    Those teams were 3-7 in the big game.

     

    This thread is a red herring, it leads you away from some very basic precepts of football that matter, like physicality, time of possession and the effect of the play action pass.  

    Scoring in and of itself is irrelevant, scoring more than your opponent is what matters.  I didn't care back in 2001-2004 how much we won a game by, only that we won.  Passing doesn't happen in a vacuum, a punishing run game will wear down an opponent.  An efficient passing game relies on so many variables (weather, yellow flags from officials, gravity, a quality throw AND catch) that it can't be relied on over a three game playoff series in December.

    Three teams have passed heavily and ran little and won a Super Bowl, all three have occurred in the modern age and on turf (Saints 2010, Colts 07,' Packers in 2011').  The majority of winners throughout history have been run balanced teams.  These few cases above are the exception that prove the rule.

    In short... this thread is dumb. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A great running game will allow an entirely average "game managing" QB to score points and win a Super Bowl; see Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jim Plunkett, Joe Namath and Jeff Hostetler for examples.

    The lack of a running game can make the greatest QB's of all time flame out and not score.

    The top 12 highest-scoring teams in NFL regular-season history, and how far they went that postseason/

    1. DENVER this past season, 606 points. Postseason result: Played Seattle in the Super Bowl  and LOST.

    2.  NEW ENGLAND 2007 season, 589 points. Result: Lost to NY Giants in Super Bowl 42.

    3. GREEN BAY 2011 season, 560 points. Result: Lost to NY Giants in divisional round.

    4. NEW ENGLAND 2012 season, 557 points. Result: Lost to Baltimore Ravens in AFC Championship Game.

    5. MINNESOTA 1998 season, 556 points. Result: Lost to Atlanta in the NFC Championship Game.

    6.  NEW ORLEANS 2011 season, 547 points. Result: Lost to the 49ers in the NFC divisional round.

    7. WASHINGTON 1983 season, 541 points. Result: Lost to the L.A. Raiders in Super Bowl XVIII.

    8. ST. LOUIS RAMS 2000 season, 540 points. Result: Lost to New Orleans in the  NFC wild-card round.

    —9. ST. LOUIS RAMS 1999 season, 526 points. Result: WON SUPER BOWL XXXIV over Tennessee. Yes, this Rams team was the only one among the top-12 scoring offenses in NFL history that won the Super Bowl that season.

    10. INDIANAPOLIS 2004 season, 522 points. Result: Lost to New England in the AFC divisional round.

    11. NEW ENGLAND 2010 season, 518 points. Result: Lost to NY Jets in the AFC divisional round.

    T12. MIAMI 1984 season, 513 points. Result: Lost to 49ers in Super Bowl XIX.

    T12.  NEW ENGLAND 2011 season, 513 points. Result: Lost to NY Giants in Super Bowl XLVI.

    –And if you go by average points per game, including teams that played 14-game regular-seasons, the highest two seasons in that category during the Super Bowl era would be…

    RAIDERS 1967 AFL season, 468 points (33.4 per, would rank 9th by average). Result: Lost to Green Bay in Super Bowl II.

    RAIDERS 1968 AFL season, 453 points (32.4 per, would rank 14th by average). Result: Lost to NY Jets in AFL conference championship.

    All in all, 10 teams among NFL’s top-20 all-time scoring offenses (I only listed the top 14 here) got to the Super Bowl that season.

    Those teams were 3-7 in the big game.

     

    This thread is a red herring, it leads you away from some very basic precepts of football that matter, like physicality, time of possession and the effect of the play action pass.  

    Scoring in and of itself is irrelevant, scoring more than your opponent is what matters.  I didn't care back in 2001-2004 how much we won a game by, only that we won.  Passing doesn't happen in a vacuum, a punishing run game will wear down an opponent.  An efficient passing game relies on so many variables (weather, yellow flags from officials, gravity, a quality throw AND catch) that it can't be relied on over a three game playoff series in December.

    Three teams have passed heavily and ran little and won a Super Bowl, all three have occurred in the modern age (Saints 2010, Colts 07,' Packers in 2011').  The majority of winners throughout history have been run balanced teams.  These few cases above are the exception that prove the rule.

    In short... this thread is dumb

    [/QUOTE]

    So aint BB for passing so much then, no?

    He doesnt seem to agree with you. I have my opinion but the coaches is the one that matters most.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    So aint BB for passing so much then, no?

    He doesnt seem to agree with you. I have my opinion but the coaches is the one that matters most.

    [/QUOTE]

    Says the guy who complains the most that BB hasn't won a Super Bowl since 2004.

    We won three rings as a run first team, that about sums it up.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    So aint BB for passing so much then, no?

    He doesnt seem to agree with you. I have my opinion but the coaches is the one that matters most.

    [/QUOTE]

    Says the guy who complains the most that BB hasn't won a Super Bowl since 2004.

    We won three rings as a run first team, that about sums it up.

    [/QUOTE]


    How would you qauntify that wozzy? Sounds like a cut and paste job. Give me more credit than that.

    Why dont you write to BB and ask him why he doesnt run more in the postseason so we can all celebrate another title?

    You guys always have a problem when fans question Bills GM skills but when Someone calls you out for questioning his coaching you guys backpedal..... smh

    You cant have it both ways.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    How about the homer/run all game crowd actually say or present something new besides running more = wins. You dont think BB would do it if it was that simple?

    YOu mentioned Trent Dilfer who had a great D but we have Tommy, a Hall of fame QB with an average D.

    If we had T.Dilfer maybe BB can afford to run into a wall over and over until the RB breaks one but we dont, we have Brady who can win games with his arm so BB puts the ball in his hands after the run game fails. What else is he gonna do?  Run 48 times for 98 yards and score 13 points and we win?

    What exactly is the cutoff # in terms of Run attempts failing before BB goes Full Passing mode?  In 2009 vs the Vikings(# 1 rated Run D) it was only 1. The very first play was a run that got stuffed. BB went straight shotgun spread the rest of the way. We won 28-0.

    In the Playoff, maybe that number goes up to 5. If the Backs AND/OR the O line cannot produce ONE positive Run in 5 attempts, why Should BB continue to waste snaps while the other team is moving,scoring?  He doesnt and I agree....atleast until we get a REAL D! SO far since 2007, this team hasnt entered the postseason with one. Sure it looked good in week 3 last year but by seasons end we were a doormat again.

    So please tell me, what should the cutoff be for unsuccessful runs in the postseason where its win or go home?

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    Great thread.  A lot of this data is already avaiable, though it is nice to run the stats yourself. 

    Also, they correlate with winning at similar rates. 

    Anyone doubting it, just kick on a video of the last playoff game. I don't think the Broncos stopped passing until the very last drive, but they managed to eat 35 minutes and control the ball. 

    The reason running well doesn't correlate with sustaining drives and passing does is because on most long drives, you will be relegated to several situations where you need to pass well to extend the drive. Getting 4.5 ypc doesn't help you when you need 8 yards for a first down and only have one shot at it. 

    In the realm of situational football, running is very limited because it doesn't answer most critical situations in a game (3rd and long, behind by x, etc). 

    I mean, a few posters, we can expect to be full of bull and deny these facts you've presented outright (standing at the edge of a field and claiming grass is red). 

    But it's good to see the conversation developed here with the rest of the posters who don't have an ax to grind. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    For post 9999, I'll just add that I'm not concluding that running can just be ignored.  I do think running serves two important purposes:

    1. It forces the defense to focus on something other than the pass and prevents them from putting just pass defenders on the field.  I doubt, however, you need to run much more than 30% of the time to get this benefit.
    2. I don't know for sure, but I'm going to guess that the probability of getting about 3 to 5 yards on a running play is very high--probably in the 70% to 80% range.  With the pass, the probability of getting 0 or fewer yards (i.e., an incompletion or sack) is fairly high--a bit above 40%. The run is your low risk, low reward option--your cash or short-term bond investment, to use a comparison from finance. The pass is more like your stock investment--more risk, but where you make your money.  You use the run in situations where sure (small) yardage is more important than big yardage.  But if you can't pass effectively, you aren't going to sustain drives or score a lot. The pass is your money play.

    All of this seems consistent with what OCs are doing today--not striving for 50-50 balance, but instead passing nearly 60% of the time. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Pro, all in all a worthy look at at current trends...it's always usefull to put real flesh on the bones, so to speak...Kudos for a deeper examination of what many suspect...I found it quite useful and a generator of deeper thought surrounding major factors that probably REALLY determine outcome in the modern game.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

    How would you qauntify that wozzy? Sounds like a cut and paste job. Give me more credit than that.

    Why dont you write to BB and ask him why he doesnt run more in the postseason so we can all celebrate another title?

    You guys always have a problem when fans question Bills GM skills but when Someone calls you out for questioning his coaching you guys backpedal..... smh

    You cant have it both ways.



    BB has made a concentrated effort to improve the running game both in personnel and persistence of play calling.  This is obvious unless you're wearing blinders.  

    Winning Super Bowl rings isn't as easy as running or passing more.  Points scored, points allowed and turnovers are the only stats that matter.  Scoring points in the regular season is an indicator of nothing, as proven by my first post in this thread.  

    If a team can power run over an opponent, then the need to pass heavily becomes moot.  Pass heavy teams only thrive in the modern age because of yellow flags.  

    This thread is ridiculous in that it is merely an attempt to be divisive and support an age old argument that's been thoroughly dismissed too many times to mention.  Running is unimportant is this threads underlying message, that message is complete and utter horsesht.

    Balance matters.  A physically overpowering offense is better than a finesse only offense, this has the weight of historical fact behind it.  This axe has already been ground into a fine sharpened edge and is now bludgeoning you.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A great running game will allow an entirely average "game managing" QB to score points and win a Super Bowl; see Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jim Plunkett, Joe Namath and Jeff Hostetler for examples.

    The lack of a running game can make the greatest QB's of all time flame out and not score.

    The top 12 highest-scoring teams in NFL regular-season history, and how far they went that postseason/

    1. DENVER this past season, 606 points. Postseason result: Played Seattle in the Super Bowl  and LOST.

    2.  NEW ENGLAND 2007 season, 589 points. Result: Lost to NY Giants in Super Bowl 42.

    3. GREEN BAY 2011 season, 560 points. Result: Lost to NY Giants in divisional round.

    4. NEW ENGLAND 2012 season, 557 points. Result: Lost to Baltimore Ravens in AFC Championship Game.

    5. MINNESOTA 1998 season, 556 points. Result: Lost to Atlanta in the NFC Championship Game.

    6.  NEW ORLEANS 2011 season, 547 points. Result: Lost to the 49ers in the NFC divisional round.

    7. WASHINGTON 1983 season, 541 points. Result: Lost to the L.A. Raiders in Super Bowl XVIII.

    8. ST. LOUIS RAMS 2000 season, 540 points. Result: Lost to New Orleans in the  NFC wild-card round.

    —9. ST. LOUIS RAMS 1999 season, 526 points. Result: WON SUPER BOWL XXXIV over Tennessee. Yes, this Rams team was the only one among the top-12 scoring offenses in NFL history that won the Super Bowl that season.

    10. INDIANAPOLIS 2004 season, 522 points. Result: Lost to New England in the AFC divisional round.

    11. NEW ENGLAND 2010 season, 518 points. Result: Lost to NY Jets in the AFC divisional round.

    T12. MIAMI 1984 season, 513 points. Result: Lost to 49ers in Super Bowl XIX.

    T12.  NEW ENGLAND 2011 season, 513 points. Result: Lost to NY Giants in Super Bowl XLVI.

    –And if you go by average points per game, including teams that played 14-game regular-seasons, the highest two seasons in that category during the Super Bowl era would be…

    RAIDERS 1967 AFL season, 468 points (33.4 per, would rank 9th by average). Result: Lost to Green Bay in Super Bowl II.

    RAIDERS 1968 AFL season, 453 points (32.4 per, would rank 14th by average). Result: Lost to NY Jets in AFL conference championship.

    All in all, 10 teams among NFL’s top-20 all-time scoring offenses (I only listed the top 14 here) got to the Super Bowl that season.

    Those teams were 3-7 in the big game.

     

    This thread is a red herring, it leads you away from some very basic precepts of football that matter, like physicality, time of possession and the effect of the play action pass.  

    Scoring in and of itself is irrelevant, scoring more than your opponent is what matters.  I didn't care back in 2001-2004 how much we won a game by, only that we won.  Passing doesn't happen in a vacuum, a punishing run game will wear down an opponent.  An efficient passing game relies on so many variables (weather, yellow flags from officials, gravity, a quality throw AND catch) that it can't be relied on over a three game playoff series in December.

    Three teams have passed heavily and ran little and won a Super Bowl, all three have occurred in the modern age and on turf (Saints 2010, Colts 07,' Packers in 2011').  The majority of winners throughout history have been run balanced teams.  These few cases above are the exception that prove the rule.

    In short... this thread is dumb. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Woz, I think you're being a bit harsh on this one....any attempt to take understanding on a deeper level, a level below the pure observational level and/or gut feeling is always useful...that's what Prolate has done here...he's not trying to say it's the only factor, or the most important factor, he's merely saying it IS a factor, and he's got the stats to prove it...it's a valid discussion and the points he makes are equally valid...he also allows room for others to make their own equally valid observations...no harm, no foul...anything that increases the general understanding of the game is a good thing...I'd love to see the impact of the running game as an indicator of Off. prowess  and game outcome....

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to mellymel3's comment:

     

     


    Woz, I think you're being a bit harsh on this one....any attempt to take understanding on a deeper level, a level below the pure observational level and/or gut feeling is always useful...that's what Prolate has done here...he's not trying to say it's the only factor, or the most important factor, he's merely saying it IS a factor, and he's got the stats to prove it...it's a valid discussion and the points he makes are equally valid...he also allows room for others to make their own equally valid observations...no harm, no foul...anything that increases the general understanding of the game is a good thing...I'd love to see the impact of the running game as an indicator of Off. prowess  and game outcome....

     



    It's a veiled shot at some posters here who think that balance matters in an attempt to launch another argument.   

    The two best teams in the NFL last season were the Seahawks and 49ers, they were 1 and 2 respectively in post season rushing attempts.  

    Laughable...

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     


    Woz, I think you're being a bit harsh on this one....any attempt to take understanding on a deeper level, a level below the pure observational level and/or gut feeling is always useful...that's what Prolate has done here...he's not trying to say it's the only factor, or the most important factor, he's merely saying it IS a factor, and he's got the stats to prove it...it's a valid discussion and the points he makes are equally valid...he also allows room for others to make their own equally valid observations...no harm, no foul...anything that increases the general understanding of the game is a good thing...I'd love to see the impact of the running game as an indicator of Off. prowess  and game outcome....

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's a veiled shot at some posters here who think that balance matters in an attempt to launch another argument.  

     

    The two best teams in the NFL last season were the Seahawks and 49ers, they were 1 and 2 respectively in post season rushing attempts per game.  

    Laughable...

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, I also believe in a more "balanced" offensive approach because the running game allows better game management in specific situations (late game lead protection, clock use) and as a way to keep a high powered offense off the field...it also sets up one of the key intangibles, toughness and physicality, that many times breaks the will of the opponent....

    But he does make some valid points....the results don't lie, but must be looked at within context. Like I said, I'd love to see the other side of the argument broken down by the numbers...it would be very interesting.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Well, I also believe in a more "balanced" offensive approach because the running game allows better game management in specific situations (late game lead protection, clock use) and as a way to keep a high powered offense off the field...it also sets up one of the key intangibles, toughness and physicality, that many times breaks the will of the opponent....

    But he does make some valid points....the results don't lie, but must be looked at within context. Like I said, I'd love to see the other side of the argument broken down by the numbers...it would be very interesting.

    [/QUOTE]

    The "other side" of the argument is a non sequitur because the proponents of a run first offense aren't proclaiming that by running heavily you will win, rather, that if you can do both well you will increase your chances substantially.  

    The "results" as it were are in my first post here as well as in the history books, if you go back over the all time Super Bowl winners you will find that an overwhelming majority of them ran more than their opponents in almost all of their playoff wins.  

    The rare exceptions to the rule occur in the modern, flag happy NFL and even then are not as consistent as simply being good offensively (balanced) like Seattle and the Ravens were the last two years.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Well, I also believe in a more "balanced" offensive approach because the running game allows better game management in specific situations (late game lead protection, clock use) and as a way to keep a high powered offense off the field...it also sets up one of the key intangibles, toughness and physicality, that many times breaks the will of the opponent....

    But he does make some valid points....the results don't lie, but must be looked at within context. Like I said, I'd love to see the other side of the argument broken down by the numbers...it would be very interesting.

    [/QUOTE]

    The "other side" of the argument is a non sequitur because the proponents of a run first offense aren't proclaiming that by running heavily you will win, rather, that if you can do both well you will increase your chances substantially.  

    The "results" as it were are in my first post here as well as in the history books, if you go back over the all time Super Bowl winners you will find that an overwhelming majority of them ran more than their opponents in almost all of their playoff wins.  

    The rare exceptions to the rule occur in the modern, flag happy NFL and even then are not as consistent as simply being good offensively (balanced) like Seattle and the Ravens were the last two years.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think it's a simple issue of context...each version of the game is tied inextricably to the time it was played, to the trends in vogue during that generation...Walsh's "West Coast" offense was a way to combat run stacked defenses and possibly to make up for other team wide deficiencies...I know that's why Fairbanks employed the 3/4, or as he knew it, the old Oklahoma 5/2 defense, because when he took over the Pats they were being destroyed via the run every game...it's era versus ability....equally valid arguments both you and Pro make within their appropriate context.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    A great running game will allow an entirely average "game managing" QB to score points and win a Super Bowl; see Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jim Plunkett, Joe Namath and Jeff Hostetler for examples.

    The lack of a running game can make the greatest QB's of all time flame out and not score.

    The top 12 highest-scoring teams in NFL regular-season history, and how far they went that postseason/

    1. DENVER this past season, 606 points. Postseason result: Played Seattle in the Super Bowl  and LOST.

    2.  NEW ENGLAND 2007 season, 589 points. Result: Lost to NY Giants in Super Bowl 42.

    3. GREEN BAY 2011 season, 560 points. Result: Lost to NY Giants in divisional round.

    4. NEW ENGLAND 2012 season, 557 points. Result: Lost to Baltimore Ravens in AFC Championship Game.

    5. MINNESOTA 1998 season, 556 points. Result: Lost to Atlanta in the NFC Championship Game.

    6.  NEW ORLEANS 2011 season, 547 points. Result: Lost to the 49ers in the NFC divisional round.

    7. WASHINGTON 1983 season, 541 points. Result: Lost to the L.A. Raiders in Super Bowl XVIII.

    8. ST. LOUIS RAMS 2000 season, 540 points. Result: Lost to New Orleans in the  NFC wild-card round.

    —9. ST. LOUIS RAMS 1999 season, 526 points. Result: WON SUPER BOWL XXXIV over Tennessee. Yes, this Rams team was the only one among the top-12 scoring offenses in NFL history that won the Super Bowl that season.

    10. INDIANAPOLIS 2004 season, 522 points. Result: Lost to New England in the AFC divisional round.

    11. NEW ENGLAND 2010 season, 518 points. Result: Lost to NY Jets in the AFC divisional round.

    T12. MIAMI 1984 season, 513 points. Result: Lost to 49ers in Super Bowl XIX.

    T12.  NEW ENGLAND 2011 season, 513 points. Result: Lost to NY Giants in Super Bowl XLVI.

    –And if you go by average points per game, including teams that played 14-game regular-seasons, the highest two seasons in that category during the Super Bowl era would be…

    RAIDERS 1967 AFL season, 468 points (33.4 per, would rank 9th by average). Result: Lost to Green Bay in Super Bowl II.

    RAIDERS 1968 AFL season, 453 points (32.4 per, would rank 14th by average). Result: Lost to NY Jets in AFL conference championship.

    All in all, 10 teams among NFL’s top-20 all-time scoring offenses (I only listed the top 14 here) got to the Super Bowl that season.

    Those teams were 3-7 in the big game.

     

    This thread is a red herring, it leads you away from some very basic precepts of football that matter, like physicality, time of possession and the effect of the play action pass.  

    Scoring in and of itself is irrelevant, scoring more than your opponent is what matters.  I didn't care back in 2001-2004 how much we won a game by, only that we won.  Passing doesn't happen in a vacuum, a punishing run game will wear down an opponent.  An efficient passing game relies on so many variables (weather, yellow flags from officials, gravity, a quality throw AND catch) that it can't be relied on over a three game playoff series in December.

    Three teams have passed heavily and ran little and won a Super Bowl, all three have occurred in the modern age and on turf (Saints 2010, Colts 07,' Packers in 2011').  The majority of winners throughout history have been run balanced teams.  These few cases above are the exception that prove the rule.

    In short... this thread is dumb. 

     



    Excellent Post. Perfect, if you know the game of Football. Its the Drive for show, Putt for dough mentality, of the new NFL. 100% correct, its the W-L and who scores more points that matters. Say all you want Running is essential, in the game of Football.

     

    The key word here as far as passing is "efficient". I keep thinking of Marino and Fouts, and forget about the Montana's and Aikmen's, but lets keep passing.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    Let's keep this discussion, as the following:  Generalized enough to make obvious generalized theoretical "meat-on-bone" general overall models, but not generalized enough to waste our time with specifics, occurences, real-world examples...and other detriments of a warped reality.  We should seek to allow deja vu to rule the day, and seek to read Alice in Wonderland...but not, but then really want to again, only to not read it, again.

    Therein...our answer to this age-old discourse can become clear...  

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I guess that's why the 15.5 ppg we scored in our last 6 playoff losses hasn't quite cut the mustard. Scoring more = winning more.

    Real innovative notion.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Or the dead on correlation that our last 4 playoff losses had the same common denominator:  ZERO forced turnovers.

    In the BB Era:

    17 wins 4 losses when forcing a TO

    1   Win  4 losses when not forcing a TO

    [/QUOTE]

    FACT. Why then do people credit TB so much for those SB wins? Probably the same people who would not give Wilson much credit for what Seattle accomplished recently. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share