[imgv94]

Used to seem like if you had no running game you couldn't contend. But teams like the Pats and Seahawks are proving otherwise. Both teams I mentioned pass the ball almost all the time and basically abandoned their running games..

But it's worked out great..

Let's discuss this..

[slacker00]

I think the Pats could run if they had to run. But when the pass is working as well as it has been for them, why bother with the run? I also think Belichick is playing mad scientist with the offense this year. I'm not sure if he's trying to disguise things or something so teams will get the false illusion that they have no running game or something. Never know with that crackpot.

As for the Seahawks, I haven't really seen any of their games this season. Hard to imagine them not pounding it with Alexander. Seattle might be a situation where their line isn't getting the job done in the running game, so the offense has to compensate with the short passing attack. Similar to Green Bay early in the season. I'd be more concerned with this type of situation. At some point, the lack of a running game will become a liability. Usually against a good defense that can shut down the passing game. Running into these types of top tier defenses usually happens in the playoffs more so than in the regular season.

[jackpot269]

I think the Pats could run if they had to run. But when the pass is working as well as it has been for them, why bother with the run? I also think Belichick is playing mad scientist with the offense this year. I'm not sure if he's trying to disguise things or something so teams will get the false illusion that they have no running game or something. Never know with that crackpot.

As for the Seahawks, I haven't really seen any of their games this season. Hard to imagine them not pounding it with Alexander. Seattle might be a situation where their line isn't getting the job done in the running game, so the offense has to compensate with the short passing attack. Similar to Green Bay early in the season. I'd be more concerned with this type of situation. At some point, the lack of a running game will become a liability. Usually against a good defense that can shut down the passing game. Running into these types of top tier defenses usually happens in the playoffs more so than in the regular season.

Also not having a running game will kill you in 4th qt when you have a lead and need to run some clock out. Pats are exception to most normal rules of thumb!!!

[imgv94]

Pats kind of have a running game with those short easy passes to Welker..

[SBR Lou]

It's important.

Just how important depends on your situation, with stars in the skill positions that New England has, coupled with how good an offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels is, they're able to be one dimensional if they choose. But their one dimensional is still better than your variety.

Ultimately that's not a wise approach, or something that should be mimicked throughout the league because good teams run, good teams pass, you never want to have an area that you're really weak in especially as it relates to moving the chains.

[McBa1n]

I'm with Lousivillekid1 on this one 100%. Also, with the 3 teams that are rising to the top with the passing game (NE, GB, Sea especially) - look at their offensive personnel. That's 3 teams in an entire league... If it was so easy, everyone would be doing it. Teams can't because it's easier to turn the ball over throwing the ball, and also it's much harder to control the clock when you become mostly one dimensional.

That's just a big reason why you need to run the ball to give yourself a chance. Again - I agree - you can write at least 10 pages on why it's a huge deal to pound the rock.

[imgv94]

This is a dumb thread, the Running Game is vital to success in the NFL, i could write 10 pages on why. If you know football then you know this to be true. The pats use their strengths to expliot other teams weaknesses , and it just so happends their strength is passing the ball. But they are capable of running it very well when needed. Pats don't fit into to this equation because they can do whatever they wanna do. So why not take bigger chunks at a time in the air.

Thanks a lot..

[imgv94]

All I'm saying is everyone used to say that if you don't run the ball you can't win..

GB NE and SEA don't have much of a running game but are having great seasons..

[jjgold]

well lets see if one of those teams win it all

[atakdog]

I remember the same argument when the 49ers were romping with Steve Young at quarterback: "You have to have a running game to win, but the Niner's short passing game is effectively a running game."

Sounds to me like saying you need a running game, except when you don't.

[twtb19]

All I'm saying is everyone used to say that if you don't run the ball you can't win..

GB NE and SEA don't have much of a running game but are having great seasons..

Look at Grant's numbers on GB since like week 8 and he has been terrific for them. He is averaging like 5 yards/attempt. Seattle has struggled with the run after losing some lineman and they play in the weakest division ever, and I am from STL. NE, as mentioned above by Louisville, can do whatever they want so why not pass when they are as efficient as they are through the air. Don't think Maroney can't run for a minute if needed.

[imgv94]

Not trying to argue here.. But fact is NE GB and SEA combined have a 35-6 record all this without much of a running game..

Just saying those three teams are going against the grain and it's worked well.

There was a similar situation last season but with run defense.. everyone says if you can't stop the run you can't win.. Indy had the 32nd run defense last season and won it all.

[Dark Horse]

It's about balance. Each team has to find its own. The relationship between passing and running in football is similar to having an inside and outside game in basketball. If you favor one too much over the other you become predictable and therefore easier to defend. So the right balance is the one that creates the highest level of unpredictability. In rare cases, like the Pats, you may have enough unpredictability from the passing game alone, but it's the exception to the rule.

[twtb19]

There was a similar situation last season but with run defense.. everyone says if you can't stop the run you can't win.. Indy had the 32nd run defense last season and won it all.

Indy's biggest run stopper in Bob Sanders was out a lot of the year so that killed their run defense and he was back for their playoff run.

Edit: it reminds me of Haynesworth on the titans and their defense is completely different with that one guy. Kind of the same last year with Indy and Bob Sanders.

[jaypavs]

Gale Sayers never made the playoffs.
Barry Sanders teams never went far in the playoffs.
Walter Payton led teams didn't make the playoffs until late in his career.
Eric Dickerson played on decent teams that were never a threat in the playoffs.
College is all about running the ball, although that seems to be changing as offenses have become more sophisticated.
In the pro game the teams that can pass and/or defend the pass by putting pressure on the opposing teams quarterback are almost always successful. So it comes down to protecting your quarterback and getting to the opposing quarterback. The trenches. Having a good running game sure does help closing games down. If you can pass it opens up your running game even if it sucks all by itself, if you cannot pass defenses can put 8 men in the box and shut down the best running backs.

[slacker00]

Also, NFL rule changes over the years has given more punch to the passing game. Apparently in the '70's, DBs could pretty much manhandle and virtually tackle a WR with the ball in the air. In 2007, DBs can get a 50 yard pass interference penalty if his legs accidently get tangled with the WR, or even if his hands accidently brush the WRs jersey. It must be hell to be a DB in 2007 versus 1977.

[imgv94]

Gale Sayers never made the playoffs.
Barry Sanders teams never went far in the playoffs.
Walter Payton led teams didn't make the playoffs until late in his career.
Eric Dickerson played on decent teams that were never a threat in the playoffs.
College is all about running the ball, although that seems to be changing as offenses have become more sophisticated.
In the pro game the teams that can pass and/or defend the pass by putting pressure on the opposing teams quarterback are almost always successful. So it comes down to protecting your quarterback and getting to the opposing quarterback. The trenches. Having a good running game sure does help closing games down. If you can pass it opens up your running game even if it sucks all by itself, if you cannot pass defenses can put 8 men in the box and shut down the best running backs.

Good post..

[slacker00]

Good post..

I disagree.

Here's the dozen top NFL all time RBs in yardage, all of them had a decent playoff pedigree except maybe Sanders & Dickerson.

1. Emmitt Smith (3 rings)
2. Walter Payton (1 ring)
3. Barry Sanders
4. Curtis Martin
5. Jerome Bettis (1 ring)
6. Eric Dickerson
7. Tony Dorsett (1 ring)
8. Jim Brown (1 NFL title in 1964)
9. Marshall Faulk (1 ring)
10. Marcus Allen (1 ring)
11. Franco Harris (4 rings)
12. Thurman Thomas (0 rings, but tremendous playoff success.)

On the other hand, let's look at the top dozen QBs in yardage.

1. Dan Marino
2. Brett Favre (1 ring)
3. John Elway (2 rings)
4. Warren Moon
5. Fran Tarkenton (0 rings, but tremendous playoff success.)
6. Vinny Testaverde
7. Drew Bledsoe
8. Dan Fouts
9. Peyton Manning (1 ring)
10. Joe Montana (4 rings)
11. Johnny Unitas (1 ring + 2 NFL titles in '58, '59)
12. Dave Krieg

It looks like an elite RB has a better chance of getting a ring than an elite QB! 13 rings/titles versus 11.

How about the top yardage WRs?
1. Jerry Rice (4 rings)
2. Tim Brown
3. James Lofton
4. Marvin Harrison (1 ring)
5. Cris Carter
6. Henry Ellard
7. Isaac Bruce (1 ring)
8. Andre Reed (0 rings, but tremendous playoff success.)
9. Steve Largent
10. Irving Fryar
11. Art Monk (3 rings)
12. Jimmy Smith

So, elite WRs fare even worse than QBs as far as winning the big one.


I'll admit that this evidence is circumstantial, but the evidence does point to the fact that having a great RB (great running game) wins more championships than having a great QB or WR (great passing game). One problem with this survey is that Favre/Manning/Harrison are still active and may win more rings, whereas most other players on these lists are finished with their career. Feel free to add imaginary rings to the QB/WR list according to how many Favre/Manning/Harrison may win throughout the rest of their career. I think Manning is good for one more ring, personally.

[imgv94]

I think more credit should be given to O-Lines. Especially the Cowboys in the 90s who had Erik Williams Nate Newton and Larry Allen among others.

[2Pac]

Depends on how strong you are in other areas (WR core, O-Line's ability to pass block).

The greatest team in the history of the NFL has been throwing at a 90% clip, and theyre still undefeated.

[jaypavs]

I disagree.

Here's the dozen top NFL all time RBs in yardage, all of them had a decent playoff pedigree except maybe Sanders & Dickerson.

1. Emmitt Smith (3 rings)
2. Walter Payton (1 ring)
3. Barry Sanders
4. Curtis Martin
5. Jerome Bettis (1 ring)
6. Eric Dickerson
7. Tony Dorsett (1 ring)
8. Jim Brown (1 NFL title in 1964)
9. Marshall Faulk (1 ring)
10. Marcus Allen (1 ring)
11. Franco Harris (4 rings)
12. Thurman Thomas (0 rings, but tremendous playoff success.)

On the other hand, let's look at the top dozen QBs in yardage.

1. Dan Marino
2. Brett Favre (1 ring)
3. John Elway (2 rings)
4. Warren Moon
5. Fran Tarkenton (0 rings, but tremendous playoff success.)
6. Vinny Testaverde
7. Drew Bledsoe
8. Dan Fouts
9. Peyton Manning (1 ring)
10. Joe Montana (4 rings)
11. Johnny Unitas (1 ring + 2 NFL titles in '58, '59)
12. Dave Krieg

It looks like an elite RB has a better chance of getting a ring than an elite QB! 13 rings/titles versus 11.

How about the top yardage WRs?
1. Jerry Rice (4 rings)
2. Tim Brown
3. James Lofton
4. Marvin Harrison (1 ring)
5. Cris Carter
6. Henry Ellard
7. Isaac Bruce (1 ring)
8. Andre Reed (0 rings, but tremendous playoff success.)
9. Steve Largent
10. Irving Fryar
11. Art Monk (3 rings)
12. Jimmy Smith

So, elite WRs fare even worse than QBs as far as winning the big one.


I'll admit that this evidence is circumstantial, but the evidence does point to the fact that having a great RB (great running game) wins more championships than having a great QB or WR (great passing game). One problem with this survey is that Favre/Manning/Harrison are still active and may win more rings, whereas most other players on these lists are finished with their career. Feel free to add imaginary rings to the QB/WR list according to how many Favre/Manning/Harrison may win throughout the rest of their career. I think Manning is good for one more ring, personally.

I was not saying that if you have a good running back you cannot be successful rather that it comes down to defending the pass or having the ability to pass v. good defenses. Look at the Super bowl champs over the years, they were either among the top passing teams offensively or among the top teams in defending the pass or in some cases both. When Marino went to his only super bowl their defense wasn't all that great but they were the best passing team offensively. Baltimore had a horrible offense but nobody could throw against their defense. You can find some exceptions but it holds pretty true throughout the years.
Vikings last year one of best teams vs. the run in history plus they were, I believe, the best running team or one of them last year, went 6-10.

[BuddyBear]

I think IMGV raises a good point and I think he means to imply how is this related to gambling. Of course he is well aware that running is an important part of any offense.

This of course is an empirical question if anyone wanted to take the time and go through all the box scores of the NFL season and come up with an ATS mark.

Yesterday, the team that won the rushing battle was 12-3 ATS....not too shabby.

Running the ball remains one of the strongest predictors of ATS success....

[area51steve]

If your the detroit lions, it's not important at all..

[jaypavs]

I think IMGV raises a good point and I think he means to imply how is this related to gambling. Of course he is well aware that running is an important part of any offense.

This of course is an empirical question if anyone wanted to take the time and go through all the box scores of the NFL season and come up with an ATS mark.

Yesterday, the team that won the rushing battle was 12-3 ATS....not too shabby.

Running the ball remains one of the strongest predictors of ATS success....

That is because teams that are behind have to pass to come from behind, it takes less time off the clock. Teams that are ahead are trying to run the clock out so they run. There is more to it of course but it does explain much of it. You can also look at turnovers, time of possession, and penalties teams that win usually win those battles as well.

[clonecat]

Ball control is important to winning in my opinion. The run game offered both ball control and safety. The west coast offense can also provide safety and ball control. Simple, short passes to the slot receiver. Not big gainers, but they are safe and keep the defense off the field. I think in today's day and age you don't have to run the ball to win but you do have to be able to have ball control to win.

[jaypavs]

I agree, keep that defense off the field and impose your will on the other team.

[imgv94]

Good answers in this thread..

[buztah]

Come December and poor weather, the ability to run the ball and run down the clock takes on vital importance. There is nothing more beautiful than smashmouth football. I love wathcing an O line dominate a D line and run at will 4.5-6 yards at a time. The D knows what's coming and they can't stop it. THAT is football, baby!