Rushing Leads to Winning?
Jan 22, 2017 20:39:18 GMT -6
Minniman, Pat Williams' Belly, and 1 more like this
Post by Reignman on Jan 22, 2017 20:39:18 GMT -6
Another masterpiece err myth I busted over on VJ in December 2015.
I got tired of all the talking heads or "experts" talk about how team X wins when they run Y number of times, as if the latter automatically leads to the former, when that's simply not the case. It's simple situational football.
I know it, you know it, anyone who follows football should know it, when you're leading, especially late, you run more often, and when you trail, you pass more often. Duh right? Then why do the people who get paid to know this stuff get it wrong every week? Shouldn't they know better?
Ahhh, so if Peterson carries 20 times per game the Vikings most likely win, and we most likely lose when he doesn't? Wow, I think I know how we can win the Super Bowl. Just make sure he has 20 carries by halftime regardless of the situation and we should all but guarantee ourselves a victory. Come on Zimmer it's so easy. Only 8 carries vs Seattle? Well no wonder we lost 38-7. :crazy:
So I got out my box of crayons and scribbled out this fancy little picture to help explain what's really going on to the "experts", and I'm putting here so I can call back to it the next time I hear one of them make this same tired old argument again.
(right click and open in new tab to get a better look)
This is minute by minute run/pass ratio of every game from 2002-2014 for all the different leading/trailing scenarios. And to nobodies surprise, the bigger the lead a team has, the more they run. Who knew right? I mean if running led to winning, then the red, orange, and green lines should be consistently high throughout the entire game shouldn't it? And OMG, what's going on there just before half? Look at all that passing. I thought teams wanted to win? :whaaat:
I got tired of all the talking heads or "experts" talk about how team X wins when they run Y number of times, as if the latter automatically leads to the former, when that's simply not the case. It's simple situational football.
I know it, you know it, anyone who follows football should know it, when you're leading, especially late, you run more often, and when you trail, you pass more often. Duh right? Then why do the people who get paid to know this stuff get it wrong every week? Shouldn't they know better?
Ahhh, so if Peterson carries 20 times per game the Vikings most likely win, and we most likely lose when he doesn't? Wow, I think I know how we can win the Super Bowl. Just make sure he has 20 carries by halftime regardless of the situation and we should all but guarantee ourselves a victory. Come on Zimmer it's so easy. Only 8 carries vs Seattle? Well no wonder we lost 38-7. :crazy:
So I got out my box of crayons and scribbled out this fancy little picture to help explain what's really going on to the "experts", and I'm putting here so I can call back to it the next time I hear one of them make this same tired old argument again.
(right click and open in new tab to get a better look)
This is minute by minute run/pass ratio of every game from 2002-2014 for all the different leading/trailing scenarios. And to nobodies surprise, the bigger the lead a team has, the more they run. Who knew right? I mean if running led to winning, then the red, orange, and green lines should be consistently high throughout the entire game shouldn't it? And OMG, what's going on there just before half? Look at all that passing. I thought teams wanted to win? :whaaat:
... and neither is this Chris guy.