-4 in turnover margin while giving up 465 yards

[Scooch]

the old adage is true - you win when you run the ball.

Sometimes.

You can win when you pass too.

I know you didn't watch the game, so I guess that invalidates the results, but the Pats threw the ball 51 times against the Ravens and ran it 14... and won. They won by 4, and the Packers won by 5. The Pats OL controlled the LOS in the 2nd half by executing quick passes repeatedly.

In 2010 the Packers won a Super Bowl. They had the 5th best passing offense in the NFL that year, and 24th best rushing offense.

In 2011 the Giants had the 4th best passing offense in the NFL that year, and the worst rushing offense (#32).

In 2012 the Ravens had the 11th best rushing offense and the 15th best passing offense. They won with D.

Last year Seattle had the 4th best rushing offense and 26th best passing offense.

Point is, there are lots of ways to win.

You seem to be suggesting that teams that can pass much better than they run can't win. And yet there are 2 Super Bowl champs in the past 4 years that did just that.

Not sure why this is a point of contention?

 

[jordoo]

I'm sure this has been mentioned but I felt that the big difference was OSU's OL wearing out Oregon's DL and the quick pace for Oregon only exasperated this problem. Score or not Oregon didn't keep their defense off the field for long. One other very interesting thing is that by the end OSU's defense was making tackles and then hustling back and getting set before Oregon's offense was. They would be standing there waiting with Mariota for the play call, not scrambling around and looking confused. Line play in the end was much better for OSU on both sides, imagine if they had called all those holding calls against Oregon that were quite obvious on most drop backs in the second half. In the end OSU stopped themselves on offense more than Oregon stopped them and they were able to hold up on 3rd and 4th downs against the Oregon offense.

 

[Millhouse]

Certainly a great OL helps the QB pass the ball.

But if you have a great OL, it behooves you to run the ball - to impose your will on the opponent.

The best OL I can recall - other than the Green Bay Packers OL with Thurston, Kramer, Ringo - was the Jimmy Johnson Dallas Cowboys OL.

They beat people and they did it primarily with the running game - Emmitt Smith.

They could obviously throw the ball, but what made them so tough was the way they ran the ball.

Under Bill Parcells the Giants in 1990-91 were successful because they pounded the ball and ate huge chunks of time off the clock.

In Philadelphia, Andy Reid had terrific success but he could never truly run the ball - when he had to stuff it, he couldn't and that's a big reason why the Eagles didn't win the Super Bowl during those years.

This past weekend Green Bay and Ohio State demonstrated how devastating a strong OL and run game can be to the opponent. In doing so, they once again proved that despite the rule changes and the changes in offenses, the old adage is true - you win when you run the ball.

dallas had an amazing offensive line this year and ran like crazy. you're taking too much from a game the cowboys should've won if not for such a stupid rule. the difference was negligible, i don't care what you think you saw

 

[OrangePA]

Sometimes.

You can win when you pass too.

I know you didn't watch the game, so I guess that invalidates the results, but the Pats threw the ball 51 times against the Ravens and ran it 14... and won. They won by 4, and the Packers won by 5. The Pats OL controlled the LOS in the 2nd half by executing quick passes repeatedly.

In 2010 the Packers won a Super Bowl. They had the 5th best passing offense in the NFL that year, and 24th best rushing offense.

In 2011 the Giants had the 4th best passing offense in the NFL that year, and the worst rushing offense (#32).

In 2012 the Ravens had the 11th best rushing offense and the 15th best passing offense. They won with D.

Last year Seattle had the 4th best rushing offense and 26th best passing offense.

Point is, there are lots of ways to win.

You seem to be suggesting that teams that can pass much better than they run can't win. And yet there are 2 Super Bowl champs in the past 4 years that did just that.

Not sure why this is a point of contention?

I don't know why this is such an issue for you either. But you and I rarely see things the same way so it is what it is.

I'll make my point again and then I'm done.

A powerful running game is key when attempting to win football games.

And even though the game has changed that is still the case.

And though you can find exceptions to the rule - the 2011 Giants - a team that went I think 9-7 or maybe even 8-8 in the regular season - the basic rule remains - as evidenced by the Packers and the Buckeyes and as you noted the Seahawks.

The essence of the game is power - imposing your will over the other team. And that occurs on the line of scrimmage. And the best indication of one team dominating another team is the one team's ability to run the ball between the tackles.

See ya.

 

[Scooch]

I don't know why this is such an issue for you either. But you and I rarely see things the same way so it is what it is.

I'll make my point again and then I'm done.

A powerful running game is key when attempting to win football games.

And even though the game has changed that is still the case.

And though you can find exceptions to the rule - the 2011 Giants - a team that went I think 9-7 or maybe even 8-8 in the regular season - the basic rule remains - as evidenced by the Packers and the Buckeyes and as you noted the Seahawks.

The essence of the game is power - imposing your will over the other team. And that occurs on the line of scrimmage. And the best indication of one team dominating another team is the one team's ability to run the ball between the tackles.

See ya.

Except that sometimes it is not key.

I found 2 examples out of 4 regarding Super Bowls. I found 1 example out of 2 playoff games this past weekend.

50% is not an "exception".

Having a great running game helps you win.

Having a great passing game helps you win.

You can build championship caliber teams either way.

 

[Millhouse]

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...regon-national-championship-score-stats-recap

skip the mumbo jumbo table, scroll down

Games like this are usually closer based on yards, field position and turnovers. Drops killed them

 

[upperdeck]

for a game this thinks should have been closer It sure felt like it should have been worse.

 

[Millhouse]

for a game this thinks should have been closer It sure felt like it should have been worse.

well sure if you run for 300 yards and don't fumble, you're probably cruising unless the other great offense can keep up

i think if oregon had their WR and helfrich didn't tighten up, it could've been a shootout

 

[upperdeck]

well sure if you run for 300 yards and don't fumble, you're probably cruising unless the other great offense can keep up

i think if oregon had their WR and helfrich didn't tighten up, it could've been a shootout

they also could have let to getting into the RZ 2 more times for Fgs and the 4 OSU mistakes would have taken away 1 Oregon score and probably let to 2-3 more OSU scores as well as another 75-100 yds of offense.

Oregon expected the things to do to work and never had a plan B. There is no reason to run tempo if it doesnt work as it makes your job on D harder. They added to their own issues and I think it gets worse when the have a bigdrop at QB next year.

 

[OrangePA]

Except that sometimes it is not key.

I found 2 examples out of 4 regarding Super Bowls. I found 1 example out of 2 playoff games this past weekend.

50% is not an "exception".

Having a great running game helps you win.

Having a great passing game helps you win.

You can build championship caliber teams either way.

Yes, great special teams help you win games and great defense helps you win games too!.

Excellent!

But, as I mentioned, that Giants team you referenced was, during the regular season, a .500 ball club. So, it would seem that your full season stats support the notion that a team that gains yardage primarily through the air finishes about .500.

And I just took a quick look, the Packers, the year they barely won the Super Bowl benefitted from three turnovers by the Steelers (the Pack did not have a TO) and did not really accumulate all that much yardage.

So, again, you have made a very good observation that to be good, you have to be good, but the basic point - that running the football effectively is a very good indication that the team will win - remains pretty unassailable.

Thanks for your usual interesting banter.

 

[TheCusian]

For me the point is this:

Running effectively does what passing effectively never does. It "flattens" a defense out; bringing guys closer to the line of scrimmage. Oregon, tOSU, Chip Kelly's Eagles - all hinge primarily on flattening a defense by bringing more guys into the box or close to it via the run. They then spread you out along the line of scrimmage and use misdirection plays to get puncture the flattened out defense - or to pass over the defenders deep. Lots of big plays for big yardage (it also explains why these same offenses tend to struggle in the red zone - no space to take advantage of the guys up close - they can get into coverage easier).

It's always better to be balanced. It's too big an advantage for the offense.

 

[Scooch]

Yes, great special teams help you win games and great defense helps you win games too!. Excellent! But, as I mentioned, that Giants team you referenced was, during the regular season, a .500 ball club. So, it would seem that your full season stats support the notion that a team that gains yardage primarily through the air finishes about .500. And I just took a quick look, the Packers, the year they barely won the Super Bowl benefitted from three turnovers by the Steelers (the Pack did not have a TO) and did not really accumulate all that much yardage. So, again, you have made a very good observation that to be good, you have to be good, but the basic point - that running the football effectively is a very good indication that the team will win - remains pretty unassailable. Thanks for your usual interesting banter.

Yeah, thanks for twisting my examples to fit your narrative.

I should know better.

 

[BuffOrange]

There is a reason the 2010 Packers were only a tiny dog or favored on the road thru the playoffs. They were unlucky all year with injuries, a brutal schedule, and close losses to good teams - one @Chicago in OT, one @ATL they gave up a late kickoff, another @NE with Matt Flynn. To anyone paying attention they were the least surprising wildcard ever to win it. They deserved a bounce or two in the SB after Pittsburgh lucked out vs Seattle & Arizona. If you'd rather focus on reg. seasons, well they went 15-1 the next year. But then "gotta run the ball" guy will shift the goalpost and say "ya but they didn't win it all" just as was explained with Andy Reid in Philly. They couldn't beat Carolina because their terrible WRs couldn't get off the line of scrimmage which is why they went out and got TO. Also Manning & Rodgers both lost their LT's before the start of last year - something forgotten by everyone because they're Manning & Rodgers.