Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring
posted at 4/5/2014 2:04 PM EDT
In response to wozzy's comment:
In 2001 we ranked 8th in the NFL in rushing attempts per game. We ranked 2nd in post season rushing attempts.
2003 we ranked 12th in rushing attempts because Antwoine Smith sat for the first half of the regular season, we ranked 2nd in postseason rushing attempts behing the Panthers who also happened to play in the Super Bowl. We rushed more then they did coincidently and won that game.
2004 we ranked 5th in the entire NFL in rushing attempts, we led the post season in rushing attempts.
30 rushing attempts a game is enough to rank a team top five in rushing attempts every season for at least the past 20 years. You should really consider not talking before reading some very basic stats.
Saying we should run more isn't the same as saying pass less, that's just you being misleading.
In the last Super Bowl we scored on the first drive of the 2nd half using the no huddle, we didn't score for the remainder of the game, that suxs. I don't have to count the rushing attempts or passing attempts to know they suxed. But I guess you guys are right, passing more leads to more scoring... what a joke.
Just to get the facts straight, maybe it's worth looking at the postseason rush-pass ratios for the past 15 Super Bowl Champions. These are listed in order from the team that had the highest percentage of running plays to the team that had the least percentage of running plays.
2000. Baltimore ran its way to a championship, running on 62% of postseason plays and passing on 38%
2005. Pittsburgh also ran its way to a championship, with 58% runs versus 42% passes.
2013. Seattle was definitely a running team, 55% runs to 45% passes.
2004. New England ran behind Corey Dillon, 53% runs to 47% passes.
2002. Tampa Bay also ran 53% of the time, while passing on 47% of its plays.
2012. Baltimore was fairly balanced, running 51% of the time and passing 49%.
2008. Pittsburgh liked balance too, running 49% of the time and passing 51%.
2007. Giants were relatively balanced, running 48% of the time and passing 52%.
2006. Indianapolis were similar to the Giants, running 48% of the time and passing 52%.
2010. Green Bay was more of a passing team, running on just 44% of its plays and passing on 56%.
2003. New England (despite what some think) liked to pass--running on just 43% of its plays and passing on 57%.
2009. New Orleans was even more pass heavy, running on just 42% of plays, and passing on 58%.
2011. Those Giants threw their way to victory, running only 39% of the time and passing 61%.
2001. The New England Patriots also ran just 39% of the time and passed 61%.
1999. And the kings of passing their way to victory were the Rams, running only 29% of the time and throwing a whopping 71%.
I'd say that's 5 running teams, 4 balanced teams, and 6 passing teams.
Oh, and lest anyone get fooled, the reason the Pats were first or second in rushing attempts in their Super Bowl winning years was because, as the Super Bowl winner, they played more games than most teams. Of course they had more total rushing attempts than most--they played 3 games while most other teams played 2 or 1.They were also second in rushing attempts in the postseason in 2011 when they lost the Super Bowl--again just because they played more games than most other teams. Attempts per game is a better stat because it adjusts for number of games played. But that stat doesn't help Wozzy too much. In 2011 the Pats were fifth in attempts per game with 26.7. In 2001, by coincidence, they were also fifth in attempts per game with an identical 26.7. Guess Charlie Weis and Bill O'Brien were more alike in the playoffs than Wozzy realizes . . .
Really, the best way to judge balance is to do what I do above . . . look at percentages of pass plays and run plays. That accounts for number of plays as well as for number of games. And when you do that, you see that two of the three Pats Super Bowl champions were teams that liked to pass in the playoffs.