|
Edited on Mon Oct-03-05 03:13 AM by Awsi Dooger
Run blocking requires physical superiority, massive men displacing other massive men. The passing game is more ticklish, frustrating and tricking the opposition instead of physical prowess. When you run the ball often it gives the entire offensive more confidence, especially the line, and wears down the defense. The long runs at the end of games by backs who have been frustrated for three quarters are hardly coincidence.
This is not simpleton passe theory. The stats consistently back it up. In the NFL, the team with the most rushing attempts wins nearly 85% of the time. That stat is essentially unchanged throughout the eras, surviving all changes in philosophy. And it's not a case of the team with the lead piling up meaningless rushing attempts in the 4th quarter. That is a fallacy. My job is in sports statistics and I have to chart games every weekend. The rushing attempts accumulate in relationship to the score in almost every case.
Run the ball often, pass the ball well. That is the blueprint for NFL success. You generally need to average 28-35 rushing attempts per game and 7.0 or higher yards per pass attempt. This is the vital point: the short passing game violates BOTH criteria, since it substitutes a short wimpy pass for a physical running play, and the short pass by definition lessens your average yards per attempt. You can't succeed longterm by depending on the short pass. The '80s 49ers who supposedly invented the west coast offense under Bill Walsh always had laudable number of rushing attempts, even when their backfield was Bill Ring and Wendell Tyler and Earl Cooper. Walsh repeatedly spoke against the 4 WR approach with a deemphasis on the running game while he was an analyst for NBC. His quote was basically this, "People are saying this is the future of the game of football. IT IS NOT. At least not successful football, the best football."
Admittedly, Philadelphia has been successful in 2004 and so far this year violating these principles. The Eagles averaged something like 24 rushing attempts last season. They are the only team I've seen in 15+ years of charting stats that can frequently overcome that 85% stat of a team running the ball most often winning the game. In fact, the Eagles drag that league wide number down all by themselves.
The FOX announcers today quoted Andy Reid as saying if it were up to him Philadelphia would NEVER run the football. Well, best of luck winning a title. I admittedly allowed a not-so-private chuckle last season when the Eagles essentially blew the Super Bowl via several INTs on first down in the Patriot red zone. The Eagles tried to win a Super Bowl with 17 rushing attempts and justifiably failed.
On edit: I forgot to mention one thing regarding Philly's success in 2004 and this year despite not running the ball. It is undoubtedly influenced by acquiring Terrell Owens. Much more than the sports media allows. Prior to 2004, Donovan McNabb was persistently subpar in yards per attempt. He was always in the 6.5 or 6.6 range. That's reject level in the playoffs. After acquiring TO, McNabb rocketed to 8.3 last season. That is outstanding. It's probably a combo of McNabb coming of age along with the superior WR personnel and getting Westbrook involved. This year McNabb is very high at 7.7 yards per attempt. It's just that the Eagles have no idea how much better their playoff chances would be with added balance. They drafted an offensive linemen like Andrews from Arkansas who can outmanuever and bully virtually any defensive lineman, yet I watch him every week wasted in pass protection only.
|