Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

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

    Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    Going back 10 years the Super bowl winners have ranked thusly in rushing attempts.

     

    2011 - Giants - 22nd.

     

    2010 - Packers -20th.

     

    2009 - Saints - 7th.

     

    2008 - Steelers - 9th

     

    2007 - Giants - 8th,

     

    2006 - Colts -18th.

     

    2005 - Steelers - 1st.

     

    2004 - Pats - 5th.

     

    2003 - Pats - 12th.

     

    2002 - Bucs - 24th.

     

    TWO teams even made the top 5 in rushing attempts. That is hardly an endorsement that being one of the frequent rushing teams is a key to ultimate success.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    How many were ranked 1st with the pass?  Running and passing are both important. Do you want a one dimensional offense? 

     

    Looks like another thread intended to start an argument 

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    Point taken.  That said, half the winners rank in the upper half of the league in running and no one is ranked lower than 24th (of 32 teams).  My point being a team does have to have some measure of an effective ground game.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    Yeah, these stats show that teams need a decent running game to win super bowls. Pretty much what most of us have been saying. Looks like the Patriots fall right into this category.

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Point taken.  That said, half the winners rank in the upper half of the league in running and no one is ranked lower than 24th (of 32 teams).  My point being a team does have to have some measure of an effective ground game.

    [/QUOTE]


    Or you could say fully 40% were ranked below even average rushing attempts, much less the venerated title of being "balanced".

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    In response to sporter81's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How many were ranked 1st with the pass?  Running and passing are both important. Do you want a one dimensional offense? 

     

    Looks like another thread intended to start an argument 

    [/QUOTE]


    Do you go into threads touting the running game and balance and accuse them of being "another thread intended to start an argument".

     

    Didn't think so.

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    In response to sporter81's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yeah, these stats show that teams need a decent running game to win super bowls. Pretty much what most of us have been saying. Looks like the Patriots fall right into this category.

    [/QUOTE]


    GREAT news for you then. Because the 2011 Pats placed higher in attempts than 40% of these Super Bowl winners.

     

    So I guess "most of you" were saying last year's balance was good enough, right?

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    Babe~

    How'd these teams fare during their respective playoff runs, and the actual Superbowl contests they played in themselves... 

    ^ That is, IF you'd actually like to make your greater point here ("Who has been winning Superbowls with the run?")- actually somewhat relative to the details that you're offering up in your first post... 

    I know, I know, I know- It's simply an "If you decide to someday" type of point that I'm just throwin' on out here... (Ya know: Some folks still like things like details, figures, numbers, and stats which aren't made up, And/Or <as it relates here>- Actual facts which can hope to best relate to the actual claim and thesis). 

    ^ Anyway...somethin' to 1 day perhaps think about... 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    Half of those teams are top 10 ranked running teams...

     

    60% of those teams rank in the top half of the NFL and only 1 ranks in the bottom fourth of the entire league. How does this help your point? 

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    In response to LazarusintheSanatorium's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe~

    How'd these teams fare during their respective playoff runs, and the actual Superbowl contests they played in themselves... 

    ^ That is, IF you'd actually like to make your greater point here ("Who has been winning Superbowls with the run?")- actually somewhat relative to the details that you're offering up in your first post... 

    I know, I know, I know- It's simply an "If you decide to someday" type of point that I'm just throwin' on out here... (Ya know: Some folks still like things like details, figures, numbers, and stats which aren't made up, And/Or <as it relates here>- Actual facts which can hope to best relate to the actual claim and thesis). 

    ^ Anyway...somethin' to 1 day perhaps think about... 

    [/QUOTE]


    A more in depth analysis is welcome by me. I just put up a simple sampling with a simple criteria that I deemed on the mark. Usually, the obvious suffices.

     

    Believe me when I tell you, if our backs could have averaged considerably more than 3.6 yards a carry in the recent Super Bowl or more than 2.8 in '07, I would be among the first to be wondering why we didn't hand the ball off more. But they didn't.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Half of those teams are top 10 ranked running teams...

     

    60% of those teams rank in the top half of the NFL and only 1 ranks in the bottom fourth of the entire league. How does this help your point? 

    [/QUOTE]


    Like I said, only 20% were top 5 in rushes. I think that speaks for itself.

     

    If you're trying to say the eventual champion is likely to have a decent running game and therefore use it more than a team that doesn't, I would agree. But that isn't saying you need the "balanced" attack to succeed.

    As I pointed out, 40% of the champions attempted less than the league average rushes.

     

    "Top Ten"? Top ten is nearly a third of the league (31%). That is hardly proof a lot of running gets you the Lombardi. We are talking about the eventual champion here. Expecting them to be in the last few slots in any category is extremely unlikely. Well, unless it's the Pats' 2011 D.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from GO47. Show GO47's posts

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    In response to ricky12684's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    of the past 5 SB winners-

    0 had a single RB carry 20 times or more in the SB

    2 had a combined 20 carries or more (NYG)

    0 had a RB rush for 100 yards or more

    1 had a combined 100 yards or more rushing (NYG SBXLVI)

    5 had 30 or more pass attempts (NYG 42 SBXLVI, GB/NO 39)

    1 had a negative turnover differential (NYG XLII)

    [/QUOTE]

    I still like what BB says. If the defense is going to take away one thing then you better be able to do the other. Most Super Bowl teams have good run defenses that should be able to stop the run. But very few can do both, stop the run and pass.

    You have to give credit to these teams for putting together the right mix of players both on defense and offense. It's a diffucult task with the salary cap and trying to judge talent coming out of the draft. Then adding enough depth to the team because injuries are a part of any football team's season. The Jets are a great example of how not to do it.

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    Post season stats or why this post is disingenuous...

    Postseason rushing attempts per game for the last ten years:

    2011 - Giants - #4.

     

    2010 - Packers -#6.

     

    2009 - Saints - #5.

     

    2008 - Steelers - #3

     

    2007 - Giants - #3,

     

    2006 - Colts -#1.

     

    2005 - Steelers - #2.

     

    2004 - Pats - #2.

     

    2003 - Pats - #4.

     

    2002 - Bucs - #1.

     

    Team's run in the playoffs, the lone exceptions were the Saints in 2009 who had home field advantage (dome) and played the Colt's in the Super Bowl, who also had home field in the AFC and also played in a dome and the Packers in 2010 under Goodell's flag happy new rules.  

    You guys must really enjoy watching the referee's throw flags for pass interference because that's why we have a passing league now, teams aren't running less. Flags have nearly doubled in ten years, but if you're a huge fan of fantasy football that is great...

    Who wins with the run?  Just about everybody...

    Don't be a maroon, being less flexible, being less multidimensional in your attack is a weakness, not a boon.  If you buy this then I'd ask you not to bet with your own money, you'll be homeless soon.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    These stats are not really cutting it for me. It was essentially a matter of how effective your running game is, not how many runs you actually run. It wasn't always the case altogether. But it is in this passing league.

    So it is as GO47 said above... If the D takes on thing away you better be able to do the other. Now that is saying it as if the D is dictating things. But if you have an elite passing game (as with TB) the D can't take that away without really giving up real ground on the run D. So such an offense needs to be able to (1) make the blocks on a D set to stop the pass via pass rush or personnel or both, and (2) have the RBs who will make the blocks effective and the D PAY. I say pay because even a sound back like BJGE really never made the D pay. Contrast that with Ridley and Bolden making the Bills pay.

    Another aspect to the running game that the stats being tossed around do not reflect is how well the running game is employed in holding on to a lead late. The Pats used to be able to do that with Corey Dillon. They did not do that against the Ravens. But perhaps that will change going forward. The two TE schemes help in keeping the D afraid of the pass while creating some blocking advantages for the O in case we run.

    Balance is no longer just a matter of yards or attempts. It is a mater of effectiveness. Effectiveness in making the D pay. Effectiveness in picking up first downs in the fourth quarter. Effectiveness in the red zone.

     

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    Babe if you want to toss out stats to make a point make sure they are complete stats and not half truths.

    • First we are talking playoffs not regular season stats so your stats are meaningless
    • Second what were their passing games ranked in the post season at all. If they are ranked 6th in the running game post season and 6th in the passing game post season then that's balance and not representative of your overall point
    • Third what were the D's those respective teams faced in the post season. If they faced 3 heavy D prevent teams in the post season then that skews the numbers
    • Forth what were their teams D ranking in the post season. It's already been shown that a stronger D has a greater affect on post season glory then O multiple times. A team could have a weaker O and stronger D dropping their ranking (see second point)


    Without these stats this post is meaningless and misrepresentative of your overall point. It just shows a statistics perspective of a bias view and if you are a scientist then you know statistics are meaningless since you can manipulate the numbers to reflect whatever view point you see fit

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Post season stats or why this post is disingenuous...

    Postseason rushing attempts per game for the last ten years:

    2011 - Giants - #4.

     

    2010 - Packers -#6.

     

    2009 - Saints - #5.

     

    2008 - Steelers - #3

     

    2007 - Giants - #3,

     

    2006 - Colts -#1.

     

    2005 - Steelers - #2.

     

    2004 - Pats - #2.

     

    2003 - Pats - #4.

     

    2002 - Bucs - #1.

     

    Team's run in the playoffs, the lone exceptions were the Saints in 2009 who had home field advantage (dome) and played the Colt's in the Super Bowl, who also had home field in the AFC and also played in a dome and the Packers in 2010 under Goodell's flag happy new rules.  

    You guys must really enjoy watching the referee's throw flags for pass interference because that's why we have a passing league now, teams aren't running less. Flags have nearly doubled in ten years, but if you're a huge fan of fantasy football that is great...

    Who wins with the run?  Just about everybody...

    Don't be a maroon, being less flexible, being less multidimensional in your attack is a weakness, not a boon.  If you buy this then I'd ask you not to bet with your own money, you'll be homeless soon.

    [/QUOTE]

    LOVE it....lol.  Plus, where's all the "data" for where the team"ranked" for passing regular and playoffs?

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    This is getting so old. This same argument continues to make the wins & losses of the games based on the offense only. I could care less how many times teams run the ball. It won't matter if their defense can't make a stop as well.

    Seriously, what is the use of the argument? Bottom line is that if you want to be champions, you have to make less mistakes than your opponent. You have to have BOTH your offense AND you defense step up to make plays. How they make those plays is meaningless if both side aren't contributing to the win.

    50/50....70/30....90/10......doesn't matter unless your entire TEAM is making plays.

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Post season stats or why this post is disingenuous...

    Postseason rushing attempts per game for the last ten years:

    2011 - Giants - #4.

     

    2010 - Packers -#6.

     

    2009 - Saints - #5.

     

    2008 - Steelers - #3

     

    2007 - Giants - #3,

     

    2006 - Colts -#1.

     

    2005 - Steelers - #2.

     

    2004 - Pats - #2.

     

    2003 - Pats - #4.

     

    2002 - Bucs - #1.

     

    Team's run in the playoffs, the lone exceptions were the Saints in 2009 who had home field advantage (dome) and played the Colt's in the Super Bowl, who also had home field in the AFC and also played in a dome and the Packers in 2010 under Goodell's flag happy new rules.  

    You guys must really enjoy watching the referee's throw flags for pass interference because that's why we have a passing league now, teams aren't running less. Flags have nearly doubled in ten years, but if you're a huge fan of fantasy football that is great...

    Who wins with the run?  Just about everybody...

    Don't be a maroon, being less flexible, being less multidimensional in your attack is a weakness, not a boon.  If you buy this then I'd ask you not to bet with your own money, you'll be homeless soon.

    [/QUOTE]

    All these teams were #1 or #2 in pass attempts also.  This is just silly.  You are comparing how many attempts teams that played 3 or 4 games had to teams that played 3 or less.  

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    In their Super Bowl win last year, the Giants ran 39.4% of the time and passed 60.6% of the time. I guess that is the kind of "balance" that wins Super Bowls, right?

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe if you want to toss out stats to make a point make sure they are complete stats and not half truths.

    • First we are talking playoffs not regular season stats so your stats are meaningless
    • Second what were their passing games ranked in the post season at all. If they are ranked 6th in the running game post season and 6th in the passing game post season then that's balance and not representative of your overall point
    • Third what were the D's those respective teams faced in the post season. If they faced 3 heavy D prevent teams in the post season then that skews the numbers
    • Forth what were their teams D ranking in the post season. It's already been shown that a stronger D has a greater affect on post season glory then O multiple times. A team could have a weaker O and stronger D dropping their ranking (see second point)


    Without these stats this post is meaningless and misrepresentative of your overall point. It just shows a statistics perspective of a bias view and if you are a scientist then you know statistics are meaningless since you can manipulate the numbers to reflect whatever view point you see fit

    [/QUOTE]

    First, you have to get to the playoffs.

     

    Second, their passing rate is moot since the ongoing debate has been about how much teams run affecting their ability to win.

     

    Third, the reference was simple. If you want to go into more depth, such as analyzing the defenses faced, be my guest.

     

    Fourth, see above.

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

    Re: Who has been winning Super Bowls with the run?

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Post season stats or why this post is disingenuous...

    Postseason rushing attempts per game for the last ten years:

    2011 - Giants - #4.

     

    2010 - Packers -#6.

     

    2009 - Saints - #5.

     

    2008 - Steelers - #3

     

    2007 - Giants - #3,

     

    2006 - Colts -#1.

     

    2005 - Steelers - #2.

     

    2004 - Pats - #2.

     

    2003 - Pats - #4.

     

    2002 - Bucs - #1.

     

    Team's run in the playoffs, the lone exceptions were the Saints in 2009 who had home field advantage (dome) and played the Colt's in the Super Bowl, who also had home field in the AFC and also played in a dome and the Packers in 2010 under Goodell's flag happy new rules.  

    You guys must really enjoy watching the referee's throw flags for pass interference because that's why we have a passing league now, teams aren't running less. Flags have nearly doubled in ten years, but if you're a huge fan of fantasy football that is great...

    Who wins with the run?  Just about everybody...

    Don't be a maroon, being less flexible, being less multidimensional in your attack is a weakness, not a boon.  If you buy this then I'd ask you not to bet with your own money, you'll be homeless soon.

    [/QUOTE]


    These stats are extremely misleading at face value.

     

    There are only 12 teams in the post-season, not 32.

     

    So being #6 in the playoffs is like being #16 during the season.

     

    And obviously the teams that advance to the Super Bowl have been having better games than others because they have been winning.

     

Share