Those were interesting stats, Packz.

Some things that stood out:

The highest pass-to-run ratios (Ariz, Wash, Ind, NO) this year is 63/37%. Not one team has a higher ratio.

There are only 6 teams (previous 4 + Den & Det) that have a ratio as high as 60/40%. Everyone else is 59/41% or lower.

The top two teams by wins (Atl & NE) have 54/46% ratios (by coincidence, the ratio that the 49ers had over 20 years when they were at/near the top of the NFL).

Of the top 9 teams by wins (10-5 or better), 7 have a pass/run ratio 54/46% or lower (NE, Chi, Atl, Bal, Pit, KC, NYJ), with only NO (63/37%) and Phi (57/43%) higher.

I agree that PA helps and that GB needs to run the ball to help the passing game.
But your above stats don't mean a whole lot. Teams that are losing tend to pass more in order to catch up. Teams that are winning tend to run the ball more as they try to work the clock.

It is an oversimplification but it shows that there is more to the equation that running helps win games. There are other factors to consider.

---

Wayne.. I agree that there is more to it than that.. no doubt.

But Zombie throws stats like candy on a playground.. I can throw stats out back that support the element of my stance.

A post from another thread... I don't think it is fail proof or vital to winning ever game.. but it improves your chances. The above numbers support that theory.. that is all.

---

WPR-

Yes, being behind has an impact, but even the teams constantly behing their opponents--and constantly in the position of having to pass to catch up--are not throwing the ball at a 65% rate, much less the 70%+ that has been called for on this site.

NOT ONE TEAM has a pass ratio higher than 63%.

The impacts of running the ball, IMO, have a greater impact then some want to believe though.... not limited to the yards accumulated on the ground.

I have tried time and time again to explain.. just doesn't get through.

---

I realize you know. Just chiming in with my two cents. Fans, in general, have simple solutions to complex problems. I love quoting stats as a justification for my position but sometimes there are underlying reasons behind the stats.

I was expecting someone to mention that GB lost by 3-4 points and didn't need to abandon their game plan in order to win.

---

IMO, there's a minimum running game required to attract the defenses attention. The minimum is based on attempting to run, not yardage, but the more effective a running game/more yardage you make, the more the defense has to pay attention to the run and the bigger the improvement in your passing game.

Historically, that % hovers in the 60% range or less. It's not a guarantee of a win (that would be ridiculous), but it does improve your passing game, which improves your offense, which improves your likelihood of winning games.

And this is why I'm done arguing this argument.

I did a shitload of research analyzing what it takes to win the Super Bowl. It started with Raider Pride saying "Defense wins Championships" and in the effort to prove him wrong, I proved him right. I found that if we take all the stats there are, the one that had the highest rates of a SB winning team is the #1 D.

Then I found what is more effective - an elite QB or an elite RB. It became obvious an elite QB was more effective and it wasn't even close. I proved all this with hours of research. This stuff isn't exactly easy to do.

In fact, it was so skewed that my conclusion was #1 D is the #1 qualifier for winning the SB. 2nd is an elite QB who doesn't throw INTs in important games. The elite RB couldn't even be considered because it didn't matter. In fact, the elite RB didn't have that much bearing on a team's record, period.

Now if you want to take all the research I've done and just say I'm throwing stats around without any meaning, then you can take my college degree too and I must have apparently paid off my professors as well as I apparently don't know what I'm doing with research, right?

Do you even realize how condescending what you said is? I actually take pride in what I'm doing here. I find football fascinating and would like to believe I'm a contributing member to this forum.

---

Zombie.. it was intended to be a joke.. if it offended I am truly sorry.

My comment was meant in the number of statistical numbers you put up was extensive..

I apologize once again if I offended and sounded condescending.. that was not the intent.

I understand your frustration with the stats.. I littered this thread and the playground thread with stats countering the pass heavy ratio but they are ignored as well.

Last two games I have been happy with the mix and the amount of totes.. but I took a bit of offense to being told that basically I am blind with what I see.. then post a visual and get told again that they didn't bite.



But I did not intent to come off as condescending. I was wrong again in that matter in my framing of my post.

---

Like Zombie, my main beef was with people who were saying that you can't win a championship if you don't have a good running game. Two out of the three best teams of the past decade--the Colts and Patriots--are very pass-oriented teams (the other team is the Steelers). They've shown that if you have a really good passing game, especially a short passing game, you don't need a good running game. I would be fine with the Packers following that model.

However, I will also say that more emphasis on the run has seemed to work better for the Packers this year. Maybe it's because the O-line is just not stout enough to pass protect on play after play when the defense is expecting the pass. Maybe it's because our receivers can't get open consistently enough for that kind of offense to work. Or maybe it's because our QB, although he's great, is not Tom Brady or Peyton Manning--at least not yet.

As for the won-loss records, as wpr pointed out (and as I've pointed out ad nauseum every time the subject comes up) they are skewed because teams that are leading run more and teams that are trailing pass more. And I think the Packers' numbers are more skewed than usual this year because they've won only one close game as far as I can recall--the season opener against the Eagles. Blowout wins are the ones where offenses really pile up the rushing attempts.

I like what pack93z says about the mentality of running the ball more, though. I think he's right that the O-linemen buy into it because they get to hit people instead of being hit. Our O-linemen seem to need that little ego boost, so I say let 'em have it.

---