You're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Last year's SB winner was the Giants who were ranked 32 out of 32 in running. the year before it was the Packers who were ranked 24 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, the Saints who were 6 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, it was the Steelers who were 23 out of 32 in rushing.

What do those teams have in common? All those teams led the NFL in rushing.

Well, there you go. There's our problem. Screw the pass. Let's lead the NFL in rushing so we can win the SB. 🤔




Sarcasm aside, the key to winning a game is Passer Rating Differential. You can read all about the correlation here:
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/stats/2012/5/PRD/ 

Dexter_Sinister wrote up a really nice article last year about it and how it correlated with Super Bowl wins historically.

As for correlation between rushing success and winning, there is NONE WHATSOEVER. I checked the stats. It had as much correlation as how many times a Vikings fan picks his nose vs how successful people in the East Coast are at catching salmon.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

You're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Last year's SB winner was the Giants who were ranked 32 out of 32 in running. the year before it was the Packers who were ranked 24 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, the Saints who were 6 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, it was the Steelers who were 23 out of 32 in rushing.

What do those teams have in common? All those teams led the NFL in rushing.

Well, there you go. There's our problem. Screw the pass. Let's lead the NFL in rushing so we can win the SB. 🤔




Sarcasm aside, the key to winning a game is Passer Rating Differential. You can read all about the correlation here:
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/stats/2012/5/PRD/ 

Dexter_Sinister wrote up a really nice article last year about it and how it correlated with Super Bowl wins historically.

As for correlation between rushing success and winning, there is NONE WHATSOEVER. I checked the stats. It had as much correlation as how many times a Vikings fan picks his nose vs how successful people in the East Coast are at catching salmon.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

As my research said, you still have to run the ball. Yes. That much we agree on.

However, you don't have to be good at it.

So yes, you should have rushing attempts. But as unintuitive as this sounds, the total yards don't matter.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

Agree with what you said 99%--total yards aren't as important as rushing attempts, but I wouldn't say total yards don't matter.

The more success you have running the ball the more you'll distract the D from your passing game. If you're running it for 40 yds you'll get their attention a little more than if you're running it for -2, -4 per carry...

Originally Posted by: macbob 

They need to respect the run. If you're only getting 1, 2 yards per carry when they're loading up the box, oh well. If they're in nickel or dime and you can't run it for more than 2 or 3 on a regular basis, they don't NEED to respect it. You don't need to be great at the run, just okay. And in order to do that on a regular basis, you need to run it more than a dozen times per game.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

You only need attempts. Yards really don't matter.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

This goes along what Shawn and I have been trying to get through to you for a couple years now. The attempts are what keeps a defense honest. A solid 60/40 pass/run ratio is very good for an offense as it opens up a lot of opportunities. Right now the Packers are being manhandled by a two high safety scheme because they are not worried about the second level being reached by a RB or a slant pass.

I'd rather see James Starks than Alex Green running the ball, even though Green has the potential to break one, he's often stuffed at the line for a loss. Starks nearly always gains at least a yard or two.

Until this team figures out how to be more balanced offensively and the QB drops his ego and takes the 5 yard easy out over the 25 yarder into double coverage ... mediocre is all we'll see.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I'm not saying that it's false, but multiple people keep saying that all you need to do is run the ball, yards don't matter a lick and that it's unintuitive but true.

Originally Posted by: Porforis