IN NFL, Passing Pays Off - The Orange Mane

Bronco9798 · 08-31-2005, 10:51 PM

In NFL, Passing Pays Off
Teams that Score First Win 60-80% of the Time. ... In the Race for the Lead, Passes Gain Up to Twice as Many Yards as Runs Per Play.

By Bob Oates, Latimes.com

Known as the dean of American pro football writers, Bob Oates has been long known as a strong advocate of pass offense, the subject of this two-part series. The first part follows.

The emergence of pass offense as the decisive way to win championships and Super Bowls is the most radical NFL change of the most recent two decades of American football. The present passing era has arrived so gradually and incrementally that many football fans, players and even coaches haven't noticed that the day of the running back as a dominant force has passed.

As 32 teams head out this month toward Super Bowl XL, the three best teams — the AFC's New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts and the NFC's Philadelphia Eagles — are all passing teams of great distinction.

Why does passing win? Why is it that in a league still dominated by coaches who favor the run, passing teams win most of the Super Bowls?

Two Key Stats

Much of the answer can be found in two illuminating statistics:

1. The average NFL pass (even counting incompletes) outgains the average run by 50-100%.

2. NFL teams that score first win most games. And for reasons outlined below, passing teams are more certain than running teams to score early.

The newest of these game-deciding statistics is the second one. According to an Elias Sports Bureau analysis of the last five years, statistics show: Lead Pct. Games Won
3-0 59%
7-0 71%
10-0 82%
14-0 87%
These are startling findings. If a team simply scores the opening touchdown, the averages indicate it will win seven out of 10 times (which translates conservatively to an 11-5 record for a season). Score the first two touchdowns and it's nearly nine out of 10 (almost exactly 14-2).

It is true, of course, that the better team is likely to score first and eventually win. But this is a league overwhelmingly devoted to the promotion of parity. In NFL games these days, there is usually no "better" team. The advantage thus goes to whichever team can strike first for an early lead.

These are statistics that enforce a new understanding of football: The first quarter of any game must be considered a race for the lead. From the opening kickoff, as the teams vie for the game-influencing advantage on the scoreboard, every offensive series — every play — is precious.

Passing for the Lead

What's the best way to strike for the lead? The simplest answer, ignored for years by those who fancy running plays, is implicit in the yardage-per-play advantage of the pass. Last year, again according to Elias Sports Bureau statistics, the average NFL offense gained 4.1 yards per run and 6.1 yards per pass (even factoring in incompletes) — roughly a 50% advantage for pass plays.

For good passing teams like New England and St. Louis, the average gain was about 7 yards per pass — a 75% advantage over an average running play. For a transcendent passing team, Peyton Manning's Colts, the average gain was 8.5 yards per pass — double the 4.3 yards averaged by Edgerrin James and other Indianapolis runners.

If you tell someone in Las Vegas that red is going to pay 50-100% more than black, there is no doubt where the money will go down. It is an oddity of the psychological makeup of NFL coaches that the stark statistical advantage of passing over running convinces relatively few of them to pass for a living.

Race to Nowhere

It need hardly be said that running teams don't think of the first quarter as a race for the lead. To a running team, the goal at the start of every game is to "establish the run." This means running on nearly every first down as well as most second and third downs. Their intent, often stated, is not to score quickly, but rather to soften up an opponent for scores that will come later.

Instead of aiming for a lead, the running team aims for eventual physical and emotional dominance — against defensive players who are, at the start of a game, fresh, motivated, and focused on the run. The result in the first two or three offensive series, even for the best running teams, is often three-and-out and an appearance by the punter.

Passing teams, by contrast, and particularly "attack passing" teams — those throwing aggressively on first down — open typical games looking to score in the fewest plays possible. Moreover, the yards-per-play advantage gives passing teams the lead in big plays — those of 20 yards and more that pump up an offense and generate momentum. As a result, a proficient passing team can frequently drive to a touchdown in a handful of plays, while the typical running team labors slowly down the field. Attack passing teams are, literally, racing for the lead.

The Eagles, as one example, throw aggressively at the start of most games. The Patriots can — and do when they feel threatened. But the great example of attack passing was the turn-of-the-century St. Louis Rams. Inexplicably, after two Super Bowl appearances and one title win, the Rams have since engaged in unilateral disarmament, running off-tackle plays in the first quarter until they fall behind.

In the years when, however, the Ram offense was in full cry, Coach Mike Martz showed how easy it is for attack passing teams to move and score.

The only time it makes sense for football teams to emphasize the run is when there's a need to take time off the clock to hold an adequate second-half lead. At that point, even good passing teams run it. Thus the winning premise over the years has remained unchanged: A good offensive team is a passing team that integrates a significant running threat.

Coming from Behind

If a passing team does fall behind, it still has an advantage over running teams. A running team that loses the lead must abandon the offense it has taken so much time perfecting, and adopt a passing approach that it does not believe in, and has not mastered. The result is, first, that the team loses confidence in its ability, and, second, that it does not display the proficiency required.

A passing team, on the other hand, plays the same way when coming from behind that it does when striking for the lead. It has only one offense, a pass-first offense that integrates a significant running threat, and it can display confidence and competence in every situation.

That leaves a question for running-play coaches and football commentators. How soon will they wake up?

http://www.latimes.com/sports/footba...ck=1&cset=true

Atlas · 09-01-2005, 01:36 AM

Did I miss something? When did N.E. become a passing team of "Great Distinction"? Brady didn't throw for lots of TDs or huge yards and Dillion did rush for over 1,600 yards.

-Slap- · 09-01-2005, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atlas

Did I miss something? When did N.E. become a passing team of "Great Distinction"? Brady didn't throw for lots of TDs or huge yards and Dillion did rush for over 1,600 yards.

Tom Brady threw 28 touchdown passes last season, sixth in the NFL. He also threw for 3692 yards, 10th in the League. He did this despite missing top receiver Deion Branch for most of the season. I think anyone with a lick of common sense agrees that Tom Brady is a top five quarterback.

Oates clarifies later in the article:

Quote:

The Eagles, as one example, throw aggressively at the start of most games. The Patriots can — and do when they feel threatened.

Bob Oates has been a proponent of throwing the football since he covered the Rams 55 years ago with Van Brocklin and Waterfield and Tom Fears and Crazylegs Hirsch.

Jason in LA · 09-01-2005, 08:31 AM

Brady is a very good QB, but I wouldn't say the Pats win because of their passing game, and I wouldn't call them a passing team. I wouldn't say the Eagles win because of their passing game. Both teams play great D. The Pats, as of last year, ran the ball very well. The Colts are the only team out of the three that I would say is a true passing team. The Pats and Eagles do not live and die on the passing game. The Colts do. What has that gotten the Colts? Nothing. What was the last team to win it all that can be considered a true passing team? I'd say the Rams. Before them it was the Niners. I'd say the Rams and Niners are the only passing teams to win it all since I've been watching football (since 1984).

So I have to call BS on this article. Passing teams don't win championships. Teams with good passing games do, but that doesn't mean they are passing teams. The Broncos, Packers, Cowboys, and Packers (just to name a few) all had great passing games, but I wouldn't call any of them passing teams. They could all run the ball, and they could all play defense.

If we go by this guy's logic the Colts and Rams should play each other in every Super Bowl.

PatsWin2002 · 09-01-2005, 08:41 AM

My first thought about the Pats on this subject is that our defense has been good enough so that the odds are probably better that we'd score first anyway.

yavoon · 09-01-2005, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason in LA

Brady is a very good QB, but I wouldn't say the Pats win because of their passing game, and I wouldn't call them a passing team. I wouldn't say the Eagles win because of their passing game. Both teams play great D. The Pats, as of last year, ran the ball very well. The Colts are the only team out of the three that I would say is a true passing team. The Pats and Eagles do not live and die on the passing game. The Colts do. What has that gotten the Colts? Nothing. What was the last team to win it all that can be considered a true passing team? I'd say the Rams. Before them it was the Niners. I'd say the Rams and Niners are the only passing teams to win it all since I've been watching football (since 1984).

So I have to call BS on this article. Passing teams don't win championships. Teams with good passing games do, but that doesn't mean they are passing teams. The Broncos, Packers, Cowboys, and Packers (just to name a few) all had great passing games, but I wouldn't call any of them passing teams. They could all run the ball, and they could all play defense.

If we go by this guy's logic the Colts and Rams should play each other in every Super Bowl.

I dont think the point of the article is to say that teams who's singularly best attribute is their passing game win. it was to say that teams that offensively pass the ball, pass it early, and aim to score, win.

note the difference.

Jason in LA · 09-01-2005, 08:51 AM

"The present passing era has arrived so gradually and incrementally that many football fans, players and even coaches haven't noticed that the day of the running back as a dominant force has passed."

"As 32 teams head out this month toward Super Bowl XL, the three best teams — the AFC's New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts and the NFC's Philadelphia Eagles — are all passing teams of great distinction."

"Why does passing win? Why is it that in a league still dominated by coaches who favor the run, passing teams win most of the Super Bowls?"

"2. NFL teams that score first win most games. And for reasons outlined below, passing teams are more certain than running teams to score early."

--------------------------------------

Sounds to me that he's saying that passing teams are better than running teams. He didn't mention anything about balanced teams. He said that passing teams win the Super Bowl. But the last time I checked, only two passing teams have won it since I've been watching.

The guy pretty much discredited the running game. Made it seem like teams would do better to pass the ball more often. But that doesn't work. The guy is just wrong.

If he said "teams that pass the ball well", then I'd agree with him. But he said "passing teams". That's different. The Pats aren't a passing team. They pass the ball well, but they aren't anything like the Colts, who are a passing team.

-Slap- · 09-01-2005, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yavoon

I dont think the point of the article is to say that teams who's singularly best attribute is their passing game win. it was to say that teams that offensively pass the ball, pass it early, and aim to score, win.

note the difference.

Precisely.

Early in the article, Oates states that 71% of teams win the game when they take a 7-0 lead. That is statistically significant.

He states that you have a much better chance of grabbing an early lead if you throw the ball aggressively early. That is the point of the article. Tom Brady didn't huck 28 touchdown passes accidentally.

yavoon · 09-01-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason in LA

"The present passing era has arrived so gradually and incrementally that many football fans, players and even coaches haven't noticed that the day of the running back as a dominant force has passed."

"As 32 teams head out this month toward Super Bowl XL, the three best teams — the AFC's New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts and the NFC's Philadelphia Eagles — are all passing teams of great distinction."

"Why does passing win? Why is it that in a league still dominated by coaches who favor the run, passing teams win most of the Super Bowls?"

"2. NFL teams that score first win most games. And for reasons outlined below, passing teams are more certain than running teams to score early."

--------------------------------------

Sounds to me that he's saying that passing teams are better than running teams. He didn't mention anything about balanced teams. He said that passing teams win the Super Bowl. But the last time I checked, only two passing teams have won it since I've been watching.

The guy pretty much discredited the running game. Made it seem like teams would do better to pass the ball more often. But that doesn't work. The guy is just wrong.

If he said "teams that pass the ball well", then I'd agree with him. But he said "passing teams". That's different. The Pats aren't a passing team. They pass the ball well, but they aren't anything like the Colts, who are a passing team.

him saying passing teams he means TEAMS WHO PASS THE BALL. u said "this team isnt a passing team because they have a good defense." when that is obviously NOT EVEN WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT. ok? get it. god ****ing damnit ur dumb.

WaffleBoy · 09-01-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Slap-

He states that you have a much better chance of grabbing an early lead if you throw the ball aggressively early.

That "may" be the case for most teams, but some teams still follow a 35-year tradition of running the football and playing great defense.

The Boy Wonder

-Slap- · 09-01-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaffleBoy

That "may" be the case for most teams, but some teams still follow a 35-year tradition of running the football and playing great defense.

The Boy Wonder

Yeah, that awesome Patriot running game. Who was their leading rusher in the 2003 Championship season?

Antowain Smith - 642 yards.

ludo21 · 09-01-2005, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Slap-

Yeah, that awesome Patriot running game. Who was their leading rusher in the 2003 Championship season?

Antowain Smith - 642 yards.

I think he's talking about the steelers......

but ya..... what happened when they got behind?? just as the article said, they were forced to do something they werent used to and it bit them in the butt.

Jason in LA · 09-01-2005, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yavoon

him saying passing teams he means TEAMS WHO PASS THE BALL. u said "this team isnt a passing team because they have a good defense." when that is obviously NOT EVEN WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT. ok? get it. god ****ing damnit ur dumb.

I almost forgot why people don't like you around here. Throwing out insults over a simple disagreement. As usual, you are an ass.

He said passing teams win most Super Bowls. Were the Broncos, Cowboys, and Packers passing teams? No. They were teams that had very good to great passing games, but none were passing teams. They all had balance.

Are the Pats a passing team? I wouldn't say that either. They run the ball. They are nothing like the Colts, who are a passing team.

This guy makes running the ball seem like a waste of time, and that passing teams always wins. He's wrong there. The Colts are the only team who have had success doing that over the past few years. But what has that gotten them? Nothing.

If all teams went by this guy's logic, there would be a ton of 3 and outs to start games.

-Slap- · 09-01-2005, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludo21

I think he's talking about the steelers......

but ya..... what happened when they got behind?? just as the article said, they were forced to do something they werent used to and it bit them in the butt.

The Steelers? Waffle's dad was still in grade school the last time they won anything.

-Slap- · 09-01-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason in LA

I almost forgot why people don't like you around here. Throwing out insults over a simple disagreement. As usual, you are an ass.

He said passing teams win most Super Bowls. Were the Broncos, Cowboys, and Packers passing teams? No. They were teams that had very good to great passing games, but none were passing teams. They all had balance.

Are the Pats a passing team? I wouldn't say that either. They run the ball. They are nothing like the Colts, who are a passing team.

This guy makes running the ball seem like a waste of time, and that passing teams always wins. He's wrong there. The Colts are the only team who have had success doing that over the past few years. But what has that gotten them? Nothing.

If all teams went by this guy's logic, there would be a ton of 3 and outs to start games.

Who, in your opinion, is a passing team then, besides Indy and St Louis?

WaffleBoy · 09-01-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Slap-

The Steelers? Waffle's dad was still in grade school the last time they won anything.

Actually, my dad was in New Orleans celebrating the Steelers 1st Super Bowl title.

The Boy Wonder

Jason in LA · 09-01-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Slap-

Precisely.

He states that you have a much better chance of grabbing an early lead if you throw the ball aggressively early.

That is not true for all teams. I'd even say it's not true for a good amount of the teams. A team like the Ravens would hurt themselves big time if they came out passing. I'd hate it if the Broncos came out passing all over the place. They win more games when they run early a lot, and run more than they pass. The Steelers went 15-1 by running the ball all day long.

This guy's theory would work with some teams, like the Colts, Viks, Raiders and a few others. But it wouldn't work for a lot of teams.

Jason in LA · 09-01-2005, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Slap-

Who, in your opinion, is a passing team then, besides Indy and St Louis?

The Viks and Raiders come to mind.

-Slap- · 09-01-2005, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason in LA

That is not true for all teams. I'd even say it's not true for a good amount of the teams. A team like the Ravens would hurt themselves big time if they came out passing. I'd hate it if the Broncos came out passing all over the place. They win more games when they run early a lot, and run more than they pass. The Steelers went 15-1 by running the ball all day long.

This guy's theory would work with some teams, like the Colts, Viks, Raiders and a few others. But it wouldn't work for a lot of teams.

Jason, come on, man. I think we all realize that trying to be a passing team with a piece of garbage like Kyle Boller under center is poor strategy. I'm not suggesting that's a good idea, nor is Bob Oates.

Anyone who believes Pittsburgh's season last year wasn't a fluke is dreaming.

The point of the article is that teams that score the first tounchdown win more than 70 percent of the time. Passing offenses tend to score more quickly than teams that grind the ball out.

-Slap- · 09-01-2005, 09:42 AM

Four passing teams out of 32 then?

Are you sure the Packers weren't a passing team when they won it in 1996? I would think a team that throws for 39 TDs, but only rushes for seven, might be considered a passing team.

Jason in LA · 09-01-2005, 09:52 AM

I don't buy into that point either. I don't think passing offenses will score more points. I'm not going to take the time to look up which teams scores more 1st quarter points, but I'll go by total points.

The top five scoring teams were the Colts, Chiefs, Chargers, Pats, and Packers. Out of those five teams the only one I'd consider a "passing offense" is the Colts. All those other teams have balanced offenses. I'd say the Chargers have more of a running offense.

This guy is saying that teams that pass more often score more points, but that's not true. He's pretty much saying that teams are wasting their time when they go out and establish the running game, but he fails to realize that some teams have to do that (that's where the point about the Ravens comes into play). Most teams can't come out passing the ball all over the place. Most teams are better off establishing the run, like the Broncos. The sky would fall...again...in this place if Shanny started a game in 3 WR sets and had Plummer throwing the ball all over the place.

I'm a believer that running the ball wins more than passing it. I haven't seen anything to make me think other wise. This guy said that passing teams win most Super Bowls, but I think he's been playing too much Madden. In the NFL, balanced teams win most of the time.

Jason in LA · 09-01-2005, 09:56 AM

The Packers ran often with Levens and Bennett that year. The following year Levens was one of the league's leading rushers.

Bronco9798 · 09-01-2005, 09:57 AM

You pass the ball to score points.
You run the ball to win.

Score early with the passing game and get a lead. Then run the ball to win the game.

Jason in LA · 09-01-2005, 10:22 AM

After looking up the stats, I have to change my argument a bit. This shocked me a bit, but in the back of my mind I knew it was true. I am no longer considering the Colts a "passing team". They are a balanced team. They ranked 15th in passing attempts, and 20th in rushing attempts. That's pretty good balance. They do pass more than they run it, but they aren't the pass it all the damn time team like Mike Martz's Rams teams.

I'd say the problem with the Colts is that when it matters the most they go into passing mode. Like in NE, during the winter, during the playoffs, in very poor conditions. Manning's ego won't let James take over those games when James would be a much better option. Manning's problem is he's a glory hound.

The Colts' stats proves this guy wrong. They run the ball a lot. How else would James gain 1500 yards?

I found a few key stats that proves this guy wrong. He claims that passing wins. But Pit, Atl, NYJ, and SD were all in the bottom five in passing attempts. They were all in the top five in rushing attempts. All of them made the playoffs, three of them won their division, three of them won a playoff game, and two of them made it to the conference title game. Pitt, who had the best record, was last in passing attempts, and first in rushing attempts. The Pats, who won the whole thing, were ranked 22nd in passing attempts, and tied for 5th rushing attempts.

How much more wrong can this guy be? The number do not support his argument at all.

chanesaw · 09-01-2005, 10:32 AM

Eagles and Pats win because they field very good defenses.

08-31-2005, 10:51 PM	#1
Bronco9798 Two Time World Champions Boom Goes The Dynamite Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: In a Van Down By the River Posts: 2,353 Adopt-a-Bronco: John Elway	IN NFL, Passing Pays Off In NFL, Passing Pays Off Teams that Score First Win 60-80% of the Time. ... In the Race for the Lead, Passes Gain Up to Twice as Many Yards as Runs Per Play. By Bob Oates, Latimes.com Known as the dean of American pro football writers, Bob Oates has been long known as a strong advocate of pass offense, the subject of this two-part series. The first part follows. The emergence of pass offense as the decisive way to win championships and Super Bowls is the most radical NFL change of the most recent two decades of American football. The present passing era has arrived so gradually and incrementally that many football fans, players and even coaches haven't noticed that the day of the running back as a dominant force has passed. As 32 teams head out this month toward Super Bowl XL, the three best teams — the AFC's New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts and the NFC's Philadelphia Eagles — are all passing teams of great distinction. Why does passing win? Why is it that in a league still dominated by coaches who favor the run, passing teams win most of the Super Bowls? Two Key Stats Much of the answer can be found in two illuminating statistics: 1. The average NFL pass (even counting incompletes) outgains the average run by 50-100%. 2. NFL teams that score first win most games. And for reasons outlined below, passing teams are more certain than running teams to score early. The newest of these game-deciding statistics is the second one. According to an Elias Sports Bureau analysis of the last five years, statistics show: Lead Pct. Games Won 3-0 59% 7-0 71% 10-0 82% 14-0 87% These are startling findings. If a team simply scores the opening touchdown, the averages indicate it will win seven out of 10 times (which translates conservatively to an 11-5 record for a season). Score the first two touchdowns and it's nearly nine out of 10 (almost exactly 14-2). It is true, of course, that the better team is likely to score first and eventually win. But this is a league overwhelmingly devoted to the promotion of parity. In NFL games these days, there is usually no "better" team. The advantage thus goes to whichever team can strike first for an early lead. These are statistics that enforce a new understanding of football: The first quarter of any game must be considered a race for the lead. From the opening kickoff, as the teams vie for the game-influencing advantage on the scoreboard, every offensive series — every play — is precious. Passing for the Lead What's the best way to strike for the lead? The simplest answer, ignored for years by those who fancy running plays, is implicit in the yardage-per-play advantage of the pass. Last year, again according to Elias Sports Bureau statistics, the average NFL offense gained 4.1 yards per run and 6.1 yards per pass (even factoring in incompletes) — roughly a 50% advantage for pass plays. For good passing teams like New England and St. Louis, the average gain was about 7 yards per pass — a 75% advantage over an average running play. For a transcendent passing team, Peyton Manning's Colts, the average gain was 8.5 yards per pass — double the 4.3 yards averaged by Edgerrin James and other Indianapolis runners. If you tell someone in Las Vegas that red is going to pay 50-100% more than black, there is no doubt where the money will go down. It is an oddity of the psychological makeup of NFL coaches that the stark statistical advantage of passing over running convinces relatively few of them to pass for a living. Race to Nowhere It need hardly be said that running teams don't think of the first quarter as a race for the lead. To a running team, the goal at the start of every game is to "establish the run." This means running on nearly every first down as well as most second and third downs. Their intent, often stated, is not to score quickly, but rather to soften up an opponent for scores that will come later. Instead of aiming for a lead, the running team aims for eventual physical and emotional dominance — against defensive players who are, at the start of a game, fresh, motivated, and focused on the run. The result in the first two or three offensive series, even for the best running teams, is often three-and-out and an appearance by the punter. Passing teams, by contrast, and particularly "attack passing" teams — those throwing aggressively on first down — open typical games looking to score in the fewest plays possible. Moreover, the yards-per-play advantage gives passing teams the lead in big plays — those of 20 yards and more that pump up an offense and generate momentum. As a result, a proficient passing team can frequently drive to a touchdown in a handful of plays, while the typical running team labors slowly down the field. Attack passing teams are, literally, racing for the lead. The Eagles, as one example, throw aggressively at the start of most games. The Patriots can — and do when they feel threatened. But the great example of attack passing was the turn-of-the-century St. Louis Rams. Inexplicably, after two Super Bowl appearances and one title win, the Rams have since engaged in unilateral disarmament, running off-tackle plays in the first quarter until they fall behind. In the years when, however, the Ram offense was in full cry, Coach Mike Martz showed how easy it is for attack passing teams to move and score. The only time it makes sense for football teams to emphasize the run is when there's a need to take time off the clock to hold an adequate second-half lead. At that point, even good passing teams run it. Thus the winning premise over the years has remained unchanged: A good offensive team is a passing team that integrates a significant running threat. Coming from Behind If a passing team does fall behind, it still has an advantage over running teams. A running team that loses the lead must abandon the offense it has taken so much time perfecting, and adopt a passing approach that it does not believe in, and has not mastered. The result is, first, that the team loses confidence in its ability, and, second, that it does not display the proficiency required. A passing team, on the other hand, plays the same way when coming from behind that it does when striking for the lead. It has only one offense, a pass-first offense that integrates a significant running threat, and it can display confidence and competence in every situation. That leaves a question for running-play coaches and football commentators. How soon will they wake up? http://www.latimes.com/sports/footba...ck=1&cset=true

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hunt news	DBroncos4life	Orange Mane Central Discussion	10	05-29-2005 06:44 PM
Nfl Report Thurs	HEAV	Orange Mane Central Discussion	5	05-26-2005 08:09 PM

09-01-2005, 01:36 AM	#2
Atlas Draft Defense Early&Often Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 18,526	Did I miss something? When did N.E. become a passing team of "Great Distinction"? Brady didn't throw for lots of TDs or huge yards and Dillion did rush for over 1,600 yards.

09-01-2005, 08:31 AM	#4
Jason in LA Gimmie that rep fool! Speaking of Butts & Boob Mojo Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: LA Posts: 12,254	Brady is a very good QB, but I wouldn't say the Pats win because of their passing game, and I wouldn't call them a passing team. I wouldn't say the Eagles win because of their passing game. Both teams play great D. The Pats, as of last year, ran the ball very well. The Colts are the only team out of the three that I would say is a true passing team. The Pats and Eagles do not live and die on the passing game. The Colts do. What has that gotten the Colts? Nothing. What was the last team to win it all that can be considered a true passing team? I'd say the Rams. Before them it was the Niners. I'd say the Rams and Niners are the only passing teams to win it all since I've been watching football (since 1984). So I have to call BS on this article. Passing teams don't win championships. Teams with good passing games do, but that doesn't mean they are passing teams. The Broncos, Packers, Cowboys, and Packers (just to name a few) all had great passing games, but I wouldn't call any of them passing teams. They could all run the ball, and they could all play defense. If we go by this guy's logic the Colts and Rams should play each other in every Super Bowl.

09-01-2005, 08:41 AM	#5
PatsWin2002 Giggity Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: South of Boston Posts: 6,270	My first thought about the Pats on this subject is that our defense has been good enough so that the odds are probably better that we'd score first anyway.

09-01-2005, 08:51 AM	#7
Jason in LA Gimmie that rep fool! Speaking of Butts & Boob Mojo Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: LA Posts: 12,254	"The present passing era has arrived so gradually and incrementally that many football fans, players and even coaches haven't noticed that the day of the running back as a dominant force has passed." "As 32 teams head out this month toward Super Bowl XL, the three best teams — the AFC's New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts and the NFC's Philadelphia Eagles — are all passing teams of great distinction." "Why does passing win? Why is it that in a league still dominated by coaches who favor the run, passing teams win most of the Super Bowls?" "2. NFL teams that score first win most games. And for reasons outlined below, passing teams are more certain than running teams to score early." -------------------------------------- Sounds to me that he's saying that passing teams are better than running teams. He didn't mention anything about balanced teams. He said that passing teams win the Super Bowl. But the last time I checked, only two passing teams have won it since I've been watching. The guy pretty much discredited the running game. Made it seem like teams would do better to pass the ball more often. But that doesn't work. The guy is just wrong. If he said "teams that pass the ball well", then I'd agree with him. But he said "passing teams". That's different. The Pats aren't a passing team. They pass the ball well, but they aren't anything like the Colts, who are a passing team.

09-01-2005, 09:42 AM	#20
-Slap- Ring of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 31,895	Four passing teams out of 32 then? Are you sure the Packers weren't a passing team when they won it in 1996? I would think a team that throws for 39 TDs, but only rushes for seven, might be considered a passing team.

09-01-2005, 09:52 AM	#21
Jason in LA Gimmie that rep fool! Speaking of Butts & Boob Mojo Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: LA Posts: 12,254	I don't buy into that point either. I don't think passing offenses will score more points. I'm not going to take the time to look up which teams scores more 1st quarter points, but I'll go by total points. The top five scoring teams were the Colts, Chiefs, Chargers, Pats, and Packers. Out of those five teams the only one I'd consider a "passing offense" is the Colts. All those other teams have balanced offenses. I'd say the Chargers have more of a running offense. This guy is saying that teams that pass more often score more points, but that's not true. He's pretty much saying that teams are wasting their time when they go out and establish the running game, but he fails to realize that some teams have to do that (that's where the point about the Ravens comes into play). Most teams can't come out passing the ball all over the place. Most teams are better off establishing the run, like the Broncos. The sky would fall...again...in this place if Shanny started a game in 3 WR sets and had Plummer throwing the ball all over the place. I'm a believer that running the ball wins more than passing it. I haven't seen anything to make me think other wise. This guy said that passing teams win most Super Bowls, but I think he's been playing too much Madden. In the NFL, balanced teams win most of the time.

09-01-2005, 09:56 AM	#22
Jason in LA Gimmie that rep fool! Speaking of Butts & Boob Mojo Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: LA Posts: 12,254	The Packers ran often with Levens and Bennett that year. The following year Levens was one of the league's leading rushers.

09-01-2005, 09:57 AM	#23
Bronco9798 Two Time World Champions Boom Goes The Dynamite Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: In a Van Down By the River Posts: 2,353 Adopt-a-Bronco: John Elway	You pass the ball to score points. You run the ball to win. Score early with the passing game and get a lead. Then run the ball to win the game.

09-01-2005, 10:22 AM	#24
Jason in LA Gimmie that rep fool! Speaking of Butts & Boob Mojo Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: LA Posts: 12,254	After looking up the stats, I have to change my argument a bit. This shocked me a bit, but in the back of my mind I knew it was true. I am no longer considering the Colts a "passing team". They are a balanced team. They ranked 15th in passing attempts, and 20th in rushing attempts. That's pretty good balance. They do pass more than they run it, but they aren't the pass it all the damn time team like Mike Martz's Rams teams. I'd say the problem with the Colts is that when it matters the most they go into passing mode. Like in NE, during the winter, during the playoffs, in very poor conditions. Manning's ego won't let James take over those games when James would be a much better option. Manning's problem is he's a glory hound. The Colts' stats proves this guy wrong. They run the ball a lot. How else would James gain 1500 yards? I found a few key stats that proves this guy wrong. He claims that passing wins. But Pit, Atl, NYJ, and SD were all in the bottom five in passing attempts. They were all in the top five in rushing attempts. All of them made the playoffs, three of them won their division, three of them won a playoff game, and two of them made it to the conference title game. Pitt, who had the best record, was last in passing attempts, and first in rushing attempts. The Pats, who won the whole thing, were ranked 22nd in passing attempts, and tied for 5th rushing attempts. How much more wrong can this guy be? The number do not support his argument at all.

09-01-2005, 10:32 AM	#25
chanesaw Ring of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Indiana Posts: 1,174 Adopt-a-Bronco: Elvis Dumervil	Eagles and Pats win because they field very good defenses.