You keep bringing up those percentages as if it is a formula to win: pass 55% of the time and run 45% of the time. If you look at our last game we went into our final drive having passed 62% of the time 38%. We then ran it 9 out of 10 plays to finish 54/46. We don't run the ball 9 times in the final possession if we are losing. Instead we probably pass it 9 times out of 10 which puts us at 66/34.

One possession can drastically skew the final percentages. If you're winning at the end it will skew it towards running and if you're losing at the end it will skew it towards passing. You don't have to be multiple scores down to skew it one way or the other. I wouldn't be surprised if for most of our games win or lose our pass/run ratio was pretty similar until those final couple drives when you're either running out the clock or making a late push.

You've noted a correlation between a closer ratio of passing/running and winning. Is that relationship causal though? In the case of the Packers Vikings game the likely causal relationship was Green Bay winning then skewed their statistics in the final drive. Winning caused the balanced ratio, not the other way around. I would like to take a look at this more in depth for more games. We'd probably see a lot of different things going on. But I'd guess that more often than not the likely causal relationship would be winning causing the balanced ratio, not the other way around.

---

Amen, brother. You are speaking my language.

---

Whether the chicken came first or the egg, I'll take a balanced attack over a one-dimensional passing game.

In the last 9 SBs, the winners have averaged 53-47% p/r ratios. The losers have averaged 72-28%. 5 of the 9 SBs have been decided by 4 pts are less. They haven't been blowouts, the winners haven't been running/running/running to salt away the win, the losers haven't been having to pass/pass/pass because they're 20 pts behind. They've been close games. In every single case the team with the more balanced attack won the game.

But fine, go ahead and advocate for a Madden passing attack. Our pass run-ratio in our wins this year are 56-44%, and in our losses 74%-26%. In our losses, we haven't been way behind and needed to catch up--we've been winning through 3 quarters (or, in the case of Miami, down by 3 after 3 quarters). It's been a conscious decision by McCarthy to abandon a balanced attack in favor of a one-dimensional passing attack. And (surprise), we're losing those games. Go figure.

:horse: :horse:

OK, let's try it as # of running plays/game, subtracting out the QB runs:


Morale of the story - when we don't run the ball at least enough to keep the defense honest, we keep losing games.

:horse: :horse: :horse:

The origional post was, is 92 yards enough. The answer is yes. If you run it enough times, it is more important to have the attempts than it is to have the yards.

If they know you are going to try to run it, they have to respect it. Successful or not. If they know you are not going to even try, you are pooched.

So the point they were trying to make is essentially wrong, we don't need more productive backs, we need to keep the run going and convert on 3rd and 4. :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse:

---

Josh Sitton would beg to differ.

Erm... :horse:

Umm... you guys are umm ... beating the head horse with that "smiley".

---

In the game of chess, which is really a good analogy of the OC and DC in any given game, you at times make moves to draw the opponents attention and setting him up for the mate.

An effective run out of a pass set does just that.. it draws the DC's attention enough that the counters with his pass rush watching for the run then pass rushing..

You use that run, draw, screen to set the defense up and give the advantage back to the offensive line.. a beat or two in pass protection is oh so important for those hog mollies.

Call it a wasted play.. call it worthless... but that would be in error, IMO.

But, one can skin a cat a 1000 different ways.. and still get it skinned.

---

to Dexter, for staying on topic. And also +1 to Keys. That run/pass ratio is deceptive, exactly as Keys explains it.

The original title is "92 yards for the RB's, is this enough?" Then I posted that we rarely get 92 yards by our RBs and still win games. Then a bunch of people got butt hurt and started beating on a dead horse.

---

I understaqnd what your saying here but the big thing being missed in this thread is the fact that it's about EXECUTION.

The three losses we incurred wasn't because of the run/pas ratio or the fact we showed our hand. We didn't execute the offense effectively. Period.

We had 18 penalties in the Bears game. Not a game where down and distance favors a running attack. Against Miami we were 3-13 on third down and got beat badly in the number of plays ran and TOP.

Sure it can help to line up under center and pass out of play action or hand the ball off once in awhile out of the shotgun. Run a screen if the defense is blitzing all the time but the bottom line is an offense has to line up and execute.

For an offense to win over the defense it has to force the defense to do things it really doesn't want to do. Your playing a 4-3 and they can't get to the QB with four they have to send more THEN you hit them with the screen or draw. An offense EARNS that by executing and doing their jobs well.

Screens and Draws are SETUP plays run by offenses beating the defense and forcing them into packages to try and stop you. They aren't going to work if your not running the offense effectively to start with.

What I saw in every loss was an offense not executing, out of sync, and, inconsistant. We did not dictate to the defense or get them on their heals because we just didn't execute the plays well enough to put them there. I don't care if it was a run or a pass or a screen or a swing to a back. We didn't do it good enough.

---