http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterb...otlight&lid=tab3pos1

Skip down to "Dallas" and you can read the following paragraph:

Tactics note: The Boys are an example of the contention by Aaron Schatz, founder of Football Outsiders and first author of the Pro Football Prospectus series, that establishing the pass is more important than establishing the run. Schatz, the Bill James of football, has countless charts to show that the rushing statistics of winning teams are a result of getting ahead using the pass, then once ahead, running to grind the clock. Last season, the Cowboys passed 65 percent of the time in the first half, then ran in the second half in order to hold leads. In the first half, they deployed pass-wacky sets. In the second half, they often had a traditional two-back look on the field. Coaching note: Wade Phillips has never won a playoff game (0-4 career), and stands in danger of becoming the new Marty Schottenheimer. But don't fire him! Buffalo fired Phillips after consecutive seasons that ended with playoff losses; the Bills have not appeared in the postseason in the eight years since. How Buffalo fans wish their seasons were ending with playoff losses!



We had this discussion a few months ago. Some posters on this board argued that running well was more important than and/or led to victories more often than passing well. It is a tempting but incorrect argument, spurred on by the fact that in any given game, the winning team tends to have better rushing statistics than the losing team.

This excerpt from TMQ supports what I was arguing. In the first half, a good team will execute those plays it executes best in order to put as many points on the board as possible. In the second half, both teams will alter their game plans: the team winning will call more runs and will be likely to win the game, thus "proving" that running leads to winning. Even the 2004 Pittsburgh Steelers, the team that went 15-1 with a rookie quarterback, passed 50% of the time in the first half.

Are there any other tempting reasons to pass fairly frequently in the first half? I can think of one right now. Rhythm and timing are more important to the passing game than they are to the running game. A passer who frequently has to read the D, take his drop, and fire the ball out of there will develop a good rhythm, as will his receivers. Although the D will make adjustments, passes will get crisper as the game goes on. Running backs also improve and get into the flow of the game, but less dramatically so.

Barring exceptional weather conditions, teams should not shy away from passing frequently in the first half. A team will have plenty of time to wear down an opposing defense in the second half of a game.

The way I look at it is "You have to look at both sides of the ball"

If a team is behind by several scores, that team is forced into a passing attack and the "D" can key on this.

With all said "It's best to be in the lead and keep the "D" guessing".

My wife must have a good "D" because she is always saying I'm to predictable.
I always say we've been married to long!

"Now that's how tou score points"

Passing = losing. End of story.

Oh hey there Soup. You'd better alert the Patriots to that little nugget of wisdom...

quote:

Originally posted by Soup:
Passing = losing. End of story.

That is hardly the end of the story. Balance is the key to a successful and potent offense. Some teams use the pass to set up the run while others use the run to set up the pass. But in either scenario, balance is the key. If all you do is run, the defenses will stack the box on you, key on the backs, and you will not be able to establish a running game. Does that mean running = losing? No...it requires a good balance between the running game and passing game and trying to keep the defenses guessing.

AFC North
December games where Divisions are won.
We better be able to run!

This ain't Dallas...brrrr its 40.

Without a doubt because of the NFL rules and with purpose in mind to make scoring increase thinking the average fan would rather see TD's than great Defenses. Passing has become a necessity.

Just remember a team like the Ravens won a championship simply with a great D and a good running game.

If the Pats n Colts didn't have Manning and Brady - they'd be running more.

JMHO

You play the entire year for Home Field Advatage. When you get it, it's -10 Degrees and Snowing like a blizzard. You think your gonna pass your way through that your wrong.

The Colts play in a dome, and IIRC the patriots LOST the last superbowl to a team who was RUN first pass second.

hmmmm

Oh yeah and when the Colts went on their superbowl run Manning was terrible...it was defense and run game that even got him there...

Indy vs. KC Manning 1TD pass, they win 23-6 Manning throws 3 picks
Indy vs. Baltimore Manning ZERO Td passes and 2 picks
Indy Vs. Pats Manning 1 touchdown passes, and one pick which was returned for a TD.


So you might want to rethink asking the Pats and Colts.

2 TD passed in a playoff run, isn't exactly Pass to win.

quote:

Originally posted by corkystclair:
Oh hey there Soup. You'd better alert the Patriots to that little nugget of wisdom...

I will. Let's go back to the AFC Champ game when Indy won the Super Bowl. Down 21-6 at the half, the Colts decided to go heavy on the run in half 2. New England kept throwing it - to the point that they left too much clock for Indy and they ran to victory in a massive comeback and went on to win the Super Bowl. So yes, the Pats should re-think throwing the ball. Let's go back to the Super Bowl. The Giants were losing the game from 2nd Q until about 35 seconds left in the game. New England threw 48 times to 16 rushes. the NYG threw 34 times to 23 real rushes + 3 Manning scrambles. Who won last year?

quote:

Originally posted by corkystclair:
Oh hey there Soup. You'd better alert the Patriots to that little nugget of wisdom...

Oh, you mean the team that LOST the Super Bowl because they couldn't run out the clock by RUNNING the ball? Yeah, lets alert them to that.

I agree w/Corky and what was said in the article to some extent.

I think that a lot of good teams pass early, get the lead, and then run in the latter parts of the game because they have the lead.

Conversely, many teams are forced to pass more because they are behind. This skews the numbers.

I do think that w/our current team, the pass set up the run, rather than vice versa.

Ravens won a Super Bowl and basically COULDN'T throw the ball. Were HORRIBLE in the Air attack. Run the ball, play great D.....Win a Super Bowl.
Heck the greatest show on Turf had Marshall Faulk running roughshod over the league and when they lost him.....No greatest show no mo.
John Elway threw his team to three Super Bowls and LOST every one. Terrell Davis showed up and what happened?
You live by the pass, you DIE by the pass. And while there may be an exception here or there, I believe a great running game makes everything easier.

We will run the ball alot this year for sure. I just don't know how well.

YOU'VE GOT TO STOP SOMEBODY!!!!!!