Does anyone else struggle to like what has become of the NFL?

[Lefty]

But, but.......JIMMY JOHNSON!

 

[FirstTimer]

But, but.......JIMMY JOHNSON!

I also find it hilarious he's ignoring the fact that a recent trend we have been seeing in the NFL is having two headed running back combinations. I mean if the NFL is "legislating the running game out of football" and has been for the last 30 some odd years then why are so many NFL teams all of a sudden so enamored with having two quality running backs?

Hell, the Denver Broncos, running a pass happy system, spent their first draft pick under that new system's coaching staff on a....you guessed it....running back!

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I looked at youre guy's statistical analysis. In one link he admits he doesnt account for variables. And in the other link he's focusing exclusively on yards per rush and yards per pass. Ive already referred to yards per pass receiving attention as an end all, be all stat. But theres a massive flaw with looking at yards per run. It doesnt tell you how much a team is running. A team that is a pass happy team that has a high yards per carry because they throw all the time is compared against a team that runs a lot. Lets say there is a pass happy team that averages 4.8 yards per carry because the opposing defenses are focused on the pass. Then lets say there is a team that runs the ball a lot and has a yards per rush of 4.7. The 4.7 is more impressive. But this guys analysis fails to take this into account.

As I said before, there are different moving pieces. And this guy admitted from the outset that he has no intention to take them into account. Also, ive mentioned the yards per pass before, yet 10 years later, there was Jimmy Johnson with Dan Marino in a crusade to find a running game. But the game has changed that much over the past 10 years and it wouldnt have been as necessary for him to commit to this like he did.

From the second link....

The data dispute the preceding narrative. There is a lot of variation in the strength of the correlations from season to season, as is of course expected given that defense, special teams, penalties, schedules, etc are not taken into account. Still, passing has consistently been tied more tightly to success than running has been. In only three of the last 41 seasons has the relationship between rushing yards per attempt been more closely related to winning than passing yards per attempt has, and in each of those years--1972, 1983, 2000--running's advantage has been small.

From the first link...

and I'm not interested in trying to give them [major network broadcasters]a run for their money by controlling for other variables, matching up output with active players for various games, and the like.

You seem to be under the impression that these numbers are supposed to make some teams look more impressive than others. That is not what the author of the study is trying to do. It is our job, based on your example, to figure out which team's rushing statistics are more impressive. His job is to show the numbers of what correlates more to winning. He's done that.

Again, you have not be able to refute these numbers. So again, I win.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I also find it hilarious he's ignoring the fact that a recent trend we have been seeing in the NFL is having two headed running back combinations. I mean if the NFL is "legislating the running game out of football" and has been for the last 30 some odd years then why are so many NFL teams all of a sudden so enamored with having two quality running backs?

Hell, the Denver Broncos, running a pass happy system, spent their first draft pick under that new system's coaching staff on a....you guessed it....running back!

And why are NFL teams so enamored with passing to running backs so much? Brian Westbrook had 90 receptions in 2007. Matt Forte had 63 in 2008, and Ray Rice had 78 last season. Aside from Westbrook, Forte and Rice put up receiving numbers that should be reserved for a #3 receiver on a team.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

One more stat that I just found that I love. Lionel Taylor was a wide receiver who played from 1959-1968. During that time, he led the league in receptions 5 times. In each of those years he had over 75 receptions, with 100 in 1961. The team he played for when playing as a dominant wide receiver.....the Denver Broncos.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Oops, one more.....since 1978, with the exception of 1982 (strike shortened season, correct??) the NFL season leader in receptions had at least 82 catches.

 

[Lex L.]

From the second link....

From the first link...


You seem to be under the impression that these numbers are supposed to make some teams look more impressive than others. That is not what the author of the study is trying to do. It is our job, based on your example, to figure out which team's rushing statistics are more impressive. His job is to show the numbers of what correlates more to winning. He's done that.
Again, you have not be able to refute these numbers. So again, I win.

Not really. Ive already poked holes in it many times over. This is just more of what I already referred to that was done in the late 80s.

And I dont really get what youre trying to say about what our job is. The guy looked at top level data and when looked at with scrutiny, its flawed. I dont care what you think your or my job is. If youre going to try and offer a rebuttal, it should be with meaningful data and not data thats flawed. And Ive already given you reasons why its flawed.

Youre response is to mindlessly revert to a previous post where you assert that the data cant be flawed because you think the guy seems smart.

Sorry but that just doesnt work. Ive already poked holes in it.

Stop hampsterwheeling with stupid rebuttals and meaningless proclamations.

 

[Lefty]

Not really. Ive already poked holes in it many times over. This is just more of what I already referred to that was done in the late 80s.

And I dont really get what youre trying to say about what our job is. The guy looked at top level data and when looked at with scrutiny, its flawed. I dont care what you think your or my job is. If youre going to try and offer a rebuttal, it should be with meaningful data and not data thats flawed. And Ive already given you reasons why its flawed.

Youre response is to mindlessly revert to a previous post where you assert that the data cant be flawed because you think the guy seems smart.

Sorry but that just doesnt work. Ive already poked holes in it.

Stop hampsterwheeling with stupid rebuttals and meaningless proclamations.

Flatly saying "I'll have to look more at the numbers later" then coming back and saying "I've already poked holes in it" isn't, you know, poking holes in anything.

 

[FirstTimer]

Oops, one more.....since 1978, with the exception of 1982 (strike shortened season, correct??) the NFL season leader in receptions had at least 82 catches.

Yes. 82 and 87 were strike shortened seasons.

Not really. Ive already poked holes in it many times over. This is just more of what I already referred to that was done in the late 80s.

No you haven't because you "poking holes" in the late 80's has virtually nothign to do with a data set going back to 196fucking 9.

And Ive already given you reasons why its flawed.

Irony.

Your thought as to why it is flawed is massively flawed.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Not really. Ive already poked holes in it many times over. This is just more of what I already referred to that was done in the late 80s.

Please speak to his findings in the 60's and 70's.

And I dont really get what youre trying to say about what our job is. The guy looked at top level data and when looked at with scrutiny, its flawed. I dont care what you think your or my job is. If youre going to try and offer a rebuttal, it should be with meaningful data and not data thats flawed. And Ive already given you reasons why its flawed.

You have given me a reason that basically is you hearing something about a guy saying that in the 80's. What did he say? Why did he say that? Why is he wrong? Please, let me know why the data I presented to you is wrong.

Youre response is to mindlessly revert to a previous post where you assert that the data cant be flawed because you think the guy seems smart.

I never said the data can't be flawed. If you notice, in the second link he says he does not take into account turnovers, schedules, weather, etc. Even still, the data reflects that passing correlates more to winning than does running, and it goes back to the 60's.

You've asserted multiple times in this thread that this is a new trend, and that the NFL is different now than when it was when you were growing up. I provided a link to data that completely refutes your version of what you saw. What I have presented says passing was more important to winning in the 60's and 70's. You've given us some off-handed quote about yards per passing, and Jimmy Johnson.

Give us something.

Sorry but that just doesnt work. Ive already poked holes in it.

Very poorly.

Stop hampsterwheeling with stupid rebuttals and meaningless proclamations.

I'm the one doing that???

 

[DMelt36]

I think the biggest difference between offenses in the past and offenses now is that passing the ball is the "cool" thing to do.

Back in the old days it was viewed as a cheap gimmick, and that real teams ran the ball to win. Now, it's believed that you have to pass the ball because that's what fans want to see.

Personally, I don't think there's anything more beautiful in football than a well-executed blocking scheme on a run play. But I guess I'm in the minority there.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I think the biggest difference between offenses in the past and offenses now is that passing the ball is the "cool" thing to do.

Back in the old days it was viewed as a cheap gimmick, and that real teams ran the ball to win. Now, it's believed that you have to pass the ball because that's what fans want to see.

Personally, I don't think there's anything more beautiful in football than a well-executed blocking scheme on a run play. But I guess I'm in the minority there.

 

[DMelt36]

Really? Because I'm about 99% percent that what I said is absolutely correct.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Really? Because I'm about 99% percent that what I said is absolutely correct.

http://www.chicitysports.com/forum/55845-post113.html


Second link in that post.

 

[DMelt36]

When I say old days, I mean 50s and 60s. Before the NFL-AFL merger. I should've been more specific.

I'll admit I was initially surprised by those numbers, but if you think about most of the dynasties of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, they were all led by strong passing games.

Steelers had Bradshaw throwing to Lynn and Stallworth.
Niners had Montana/Young throwing to Rice.
Cowboys had Aikman throwing to Irvin.

 

[Lefty]

When I say old days, I mean 50s and 60s. Before the NFL-AFL merger. I should've been more specific.

I'll admit I was initially surprised by those numbers, but if you think about most of the dynasties of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, they were all led by strong passing games.

Steelers had Bradshaw throwing to Lynn and Stallworth.
Niners had Montana/Young throwing to Rice.
Cowboys had Aikman throwing to Irvin.

So you mean bad, slow, white guy football. Gotcha.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

When I say old days, I mean 50s and 60s. Before the NFL-AFL merger. I should've been more specific.

I'll admit I was initially surprised by those numbers, but if you think about most of the dynasties of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, they were all led by strong passing games.

Steelers had Bradshaw throwing to Lynn and Stallworth.
Niners had Montana/Young throwing to Rice.
Cowboys had Aikman throwing to Irvin.

Ok, I gotcha now. You actually raise a good point....did the merger lead to an overall importance of the passing game??

I don't have the number pre-merger, but you could be on to something.

 

[DMelt36]

Ok, I gotcha now. You actually raise a good point....did the merger lead to an overall importance of the passing game??

I don't have the number pre-merger, but you could be on to something.

Well I believe the AFL was the passing league at the time, while the NFL was dominated by running backs, particularly the Lombardi-led Packers. But the AFL had Paul Brown, who is credited with laying the foundation for the passing offense as we now know it in football.

On one of the NFL Network's countdown shows, the biggest upsets of all-time, #2 was the Browns beating the Eagles in 1950. Otto Graham and the Browns played the Eagles, who I believe were the defending champs. They passed for over 300 yards, blowing out the Eagles.

Box score of the game

I think they called that game one of the first games that made people think the passing game was going to be a major factor in football.

 

[DMelt36]

So you mean bad, slow, white guy football. Gotcha.

Or smashmouth, run-the-ball-all-day-long football. Just a matter of preference really.

Just so you don't jump to conclusions, I'm not saying that style of football was better. I'm just saying I appreciate a good running game, and that was all they did back then.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Well I believe the AFL was the passing league at the time, while the NFL was dominated by running backs, particularly the Lombardi-led Packers. But the AFL had Paul Brown, who is credited with laying the foundation for the passing offense as we now know it in football.

On one of the NFL Network's countdown shows, the biggest upsets of all-time, #2 was the Browns beating the Eagles in 1950. Otto Graham and the Browns played the Eagles, who I believe were the defending champs. They passed for over 300 yards, blowing out the Eagles.

Box score of the game

I think they called that game one of the first games that made people think the passing game was going to be a major factor in football.

Was that the last championship in Cleveland???

EDIT: Of any sport?