NFL: Why Rushing Yards Equating To Victories Is A Myth

[AUTiger7222]

I was just reading this blog post about why RBI's in baseball is not a very good stat in judging how good a hitter is and the author made this example to make his point.

Quote:Now, lets add one further analogy, and apply it to the sports world. Rushing yards and team victories. One common statistic that you’ll often hear NFL announcers spew out nearly every game is something along the lines of “Team X’s record when they rush for over 150 yards is (insert very good record), so obviously they need to make it a mission to get (running back’s name) his yards, no matter what!” Seems to make sense, when the team rushes for a lot of yards, they almost always win, so they should try to rush the ball a lot. How can you even argue that point? Well, what do teams do when they have sizable leads in the fourth quarter? They run the ball in order to drain the clock. What do teams do when they’re trailing in the fourth quarter? They pass the ball in order to score while taking as little time off the clock as possible. Thus, it’s often the case that winning is causing rushing yards, and losing is causing a lack of rushing yards, instead of the other way around. The team is running because they’re winning, not winning because they’re running.

I don't know how many times I have posted on here that very same thing when people try to say the Falcons win because of a good rushing game.

[TeamPlayer1]

AUTiger, now, you know logical discussions are not well received on a Falcons message board. You are right though since Turner ran for many yards in the 4th quarter. He broke the will of the opposing defense.

[AUTiger7222]

(02-13-2013 05:44 PM)TeamPlayer1 Wrote:  AUTiger, now, you know logical discussions are not well received on a Falcons message board. You are right though since Turner ran for many yards in the 4th quarter. He broke the will of the opposing defense.

Yes I know. It's funny how the more irrational something is the better received it is.

[Beef]

This is very much the case and applies to us in so many ways.

This is also why it's evident Turner has lost it. We "tried" to go to the run game many times in the 4th, or even 3rd, quarters to do exactly what that guy said, hold the lead and run off as much time on the clock as we could. But over and over and over we let teams get back in it because we couldn't get a first down running exclusively.

If we had a guy who averaged 4 yards per carry every time he touched the ball, no matter if they knew it was coming or not, we'd have won the SB, no question.

We finally have the firepower passing game to get way ahead early or come from behind in a pinch if something fluky happens. What we're missing, however, is the running it down their throat even when they know it's coming aspect. That's why I think a RB is one of our top priorities this draft (in addition to a pass rusher). A good RB will not only hopefully give us that aspect back, but also supplement the deficiency of losing Tony. Which as discussed in other threads, losing Tony might not be as bad a thing as people realize. Getting rid of the security blanket and adding dynamic running will make us even less predictable which in turn opens up the field even more.

We just gotta hit on a really good RB this time. We need a Doug Martin type situation to happen to us this year. On top of an Aldon Smith.

[Aftermath]

The "we need X amount of yards on the ground to win" or "Falcons are x-x when Turner has 20 or more carries" arguments lways make me want to stick a gun in my mouth. There is one retard on the AFMB that considered the correlation between running stats and wins to be the gospel and advocated that we start the game running Turner 20 times so we would be guaranteed a win.

[AUTiger7222]

(02-13-2013 06:22 PM)Beef Wrote:  This is very much the case and applies to us in so many ways.

This is also why it's evident Turner has lost it. We "tried" to go to the run game many times in the 4th, or even 3rd, quarters to do exactly what that guy said, hold the lead and run off as much time on the clock as we could. But over and over and over we let teams get back in it because we couldn't get a first down running exclusively.

If we had a guy who averaged 4 yards per carry every time he touched the ball, no matter if they knew it was coming or not, we'd have won the SB, no question.

We finally have the firepower passing game to get way ahead early or come from behind in a pinch if something fluky happens. What we're missing, however, is the running it down their throat even when they know it's coming aspect. That's why I think a RB is one of our top priorities this draft (in addition to a pass rusher). A good RB will not only hopefully give us that aspect back, but also supplement the deficiency of losing Tony. Which as discussed in other threads, losing Tony might not be as bad a thing as people realize. Getting rid of the security blanket and adding dynamic running will make us even less predictable which in turn opens up the field even more.

We just gotta hit on a really good RB this time. We need a Doug Martin type situation to happen to us this year. On top of an Aldon Smith.

I completely agree.

[AUTiger7222]

(02-13-2013 06:43 PM)Aftermath Wrote:  The "we need X amount of yards on the ground to win" or "Falcons are x-x when Turner has 20 or more carries" arguments lways make me want to stick a gun in my mouth. There is one retard on the AFMB that considered the correlation between running stats and wins to be the gospel and advocated that we start the game running Turner 20 times so we would be guaranteed a win.

Yep. If you want the perfect way to lose a game keep running the ball when gaining less than 3 yards a pop. That will get you a whole lot of losses.

[TeamPlayer1]

(02-13-2013 06:22 PM)Beef Wrote:  This is very much the case and applies to us in so many ways.

This is also why it's evident Turner has lost it. We "tried" to go to the run game many times in the 4th, or even 3rd, quarters to do exactly what that guy said, hold the lead and run off as much time on the clock as we could. But over and over and over we let teams get back in it because we couldn't get a first down running exclusively.

If we had a guy who averaged 4 yards per carry every time he touched the ball, no matter if they knew it was coming or not, we'd have won the SB, no question.

We finally have the firepower passing game to get way ahead early or come from behind in a pinch if something fluky happens. What we're missing, however, is the running it down their throat even when they know it's coming aspect. That's why I think a RB is one of our top priorities this draft (in addition to a pass rusher). A good RB will not only hopefully give us that aspect back, but also supplement the deficiency of losing Tony. Which as discussed in other threads, losing Tony might not be as bad a thing as people realize. Getting rid of the security blanket and adding dynamic running will make us even less predictable which in turn opens up the field even more.

We just gotta hit on a really good RB this time. We need a Doug Martin type situation to happen to us this year. On top of an Aldon Smith.

Beef, You nailed it!

[FullMetalFalcon23]

(02-13-2013 06:22 PM)Beef Wrote:  This is very much the case and applies to us in so many ways.

This is also why it's evident Turner has lost it. We "tried" to go to the run game many times in the 4th, or even 3rd, quarters to do exactly what that guy said, hold the lead and run off as much time on the clock as we could. But over and over and over we let teams get back in it because we couldn't get a first down running exclusively.

If we had a guy who averaged 4 yards per carry every time he touched the ball, no matter if they knew it was coming or not, we'd have won the SB, no question.

We finally have the firepower passing game to get way ahead early or come from behind in a pinch if something fluky happens. What we're missing, however, is the running it down their throat even when they know it's coming aspect. That's why I think a RB is one of our top priorities this draft (in addition to a pass rusher). A good RB will not only hopefully give us that aspect back, but also supplement the deficiency of losing Tony. Which as discussed in other threads, losing Tony might not be as bad a thing as people realize. Getting rid of the security blanket and adding dynamic running will make us even less predictable which in turn opens up the field even more.

We just gotta hit on a really good RB this time. We need a Doug Martin type situation to happen to us this year. On top of an Aldon Smith.

I don't disagree with you at all. But I see that the how we go about remedying our situations with the pass rush and the rushing offense are perhaps diverging.

As I look at it we could address running back in the 2nd or 3rd and get a very good back. There are guys out there who could give us immediate impact such as Bell, Barner, Michael and others. My favourite of that group is Michael. The guy really stands out to me on tape. He had his injuries early much like Bernard, but has been very solid in my opinion since. He presents great value if we get him in my opinion.

It's not that I think he is better I actually think he is about the same as Bernard but here is my logic.

1st Round End: Montgomery/ Okafor/ Ansah (if he slips enough)
2nd Round RB: Say Barner / Michael/ and others climb to a high 3rd low 2nd grade

This upgrades our team in a better fashion than say

1st Round RB: Lacey/ Bernard
2nd Round End: Hunt /Lemonier

Honestly I will be happy so long as we upgrade one of those 2 spots with our 1st pick. But my preference in terms of building a team, the value and the way the draft is set out? Definitely is with scenario 1.

As a side, I really wouldn't rule out us moving up in Round 1 if an End we like is falling if we have a comp pick in Round 3. We could trade out 1st and 3rd move up a few spots and still get our running back in the 2nd/3rd comp pick.

I'd be surprised if went in a direction other than end or rb in round 1. Someone we feel we can't miss out on would have to be there. It's time we get some luck like some of these other teams have. Carlos Dunlap fell into the 2nd round in 2010 draft. Kid has posted 20 sacks in 3 years missed games and has still been productive we need that.

If you could show me an End you think we can get in the 2nd round who could genuinely give us 6 - 8 sacks his rookie season that I could look into I would appreciate it. As per one of your previous posts I'm hoping for Okafor or Montgomery. Problem is I think teams will pick up on how complete they are as players look past the hype of guys like Jordan and take them earlier than expected.

I think if that happened and there was a run on Ends, we would do best to take Bernard or Lacey and then go with a true 2nd round end. Otherwise we are reaching.

[AUTiger7222]

I don't understand why people think Eddie Lacy is a 3rd round back and is only good because of Alabama's OL. Just watch the tape. Look at the moves this dude has. He has moves with speed and power and can catch the ball! He's the total package!