for one of their title runs- Bama ran the ball 601 time and threw it 330 times. On what planet is that "balanced"?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
Printable View
for one of their title runs- Bama ran the ball 601 time and threw it 330 times. On what planet is that "balanced"?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
we got those WR's to be able to throw the ball when needed. We also got bigger WR's to block with- that's very importantQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
That is absolutely not balanced, but we all knew they could throw the football with effectiveness. Therefore, the fear of balance helped them run the football.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
If only we had an NFL offensive line and Heisman trophy candidates in the backfield, maybe we could run the ball 601 times and compete for a national title.
I am all for running the football as much as possible, but teams must fear our passing game in order to be consistently successful. Especially against good teams.
Ok that's snaps though, what are the yards? Probably closer to 50/50 and I said the run to pass should be 2 to 1 but not the yards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
That year they also passed for 2631 yards and rushed for 3011 yards. Not to mention they also had Mark Ingram who they were trying to make the first Heisman winner in Bama history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Usually, their yardage discrepancy is closer to being 50/50% even though they run the ball more plays typically.
Based on looking at their stats during their championship seasons since 2007, my thought is they run the ball more plays because more often than not they are ahead and want to run the clock out, which is smart football. But even though they don't throw it as much as they run it, they are very effective at throwing the ball when they do pass. I suspect the year you are referencing is an outlier to a degree because of the push on their part to have a Heisman winner by padding his stats. And I use the term outlier very loosely since we're talking a difference of about 350 yards or so.
So, when you analyze them, they're pretty balanced.
Denver Broncos last year, 675 passing attempts for 5,444 yards and 55 tds.
461 rushing attempts for 1,873 yards and 16 tds.
That's my whole point. RTGDF- because teams have to commit their D to stop it this gives you bigger pass plays. If we RTGDF- we"ll get what need out of the passing game. We need to be 65/35 run to pass. That will allow us to control games and make big plays in the passing game.
As I pointed out-during the SeC title run- the teams were all run dominant. The worst one was only 58%- the rest were mid-60's to as high as 73% run. That's how you win big in the SEC- RTGDF
Pro football is a different animal- but while we are at it- why didn't you list the team's attempts that beat the dogshit out of them? The team that won the trophy was a RTGDF teamQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
2 to 1 is 66% run 33% pass. We are saying the same damn thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
I'm talking play calling Todd. You can't control your yardage- but
you can control the play calling. No excuse
for us to be less than 65% run this season
Seattle had 89 less pass attempts than rushes BUT had 1,048 more yards from passing than rushing AND 27 passing tds compared to 14 rushing tds. I agree that we need to run more times than pass but passing as you can clearly see does creates way more "damage" in terms of yards and touchdowns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Auburn ran the ball to perfection last season on their way to a NC. Marshall hit just under 2,000 yards threw the air, very comparable to Dak. Mullen is more comfortable and we are a better team when we find ways to get our best athletes in space and run the ball. There's not a position on the field where they are better than we are, imho.
And our D is way better than theirs.
And to add to my above post, Dak doesn't have to throw for 3500 yards for us to be succesfull. With our D, if he can chunk it for around 2300-2500 yards and add another 900 maybe closer to a 1,000 on the ground, we will be ok.
Exactly- very few pro teams run more than pass- it's a different game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Im in not saying we should never pass- I'm saying that we need to commit to the run. When we do- we will be a better offense because of it. We need bigger pass plays- not more passes
Auburn choked and lost the NC to a team that threw the ball better than them. If we want to be a truly elite team we have to continue to grow as a passing offense on top of being a very strong rushing team. We have to be dangerous in both aspects and we are getting there. Let's look at a similar style player to Dak, Cam Newton. Cam was an elite elite runner his heisman winning national championship winning junior season. He rushed for 1473 yards and 20 tds. But he passed for 2854 yards and 30 tds and he did that with only attempting 16 more passes than he rushed it. My point is that passing does more damage. A lot more damage. Cam Newton is at the top of the list in terms of running QBs similar to Dak and even he has almost double passing yards and 2 to 1 tds from passing compared to running.
I'm sorry but the one loss Auburn had last year doesn't matter so much when nearly the last decade the SEC winnerQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
was winning the national title and they were running ball. A lot. Win the SEC you do it by running the ball. Win the SEC you are playing for the national title. 95% of the time the SEC wins that game. Run the ball. Yardage can be balanced and should be closer. But not the play calling.
You do know that the Cam year Auburn ran the ball 68.8% of the time right? 57.1% of their yards came from running the ball. That was the worse example you could use as they were very run heavy.
Not at all. You are completely missing the point. I picked an obvious run heavy offense on purpose. 1. because their QB is similar to ours but 2. look at the 2 numbers you just showed. They ran it 69% of the time yet only 57% of their offense came from the run. Where is passing was only used 31% of the time yet still managed to produce 43% of their offense and almost 50% of their touchdowns. It was more effective and caused more damage. Passing does way more damage in terms of yardage and touchdowns. Cam Newton had almost double the passing yards than running yards and only threw it 16 more times than he rushed it. Passing offense is the extra base hit in baseball and running offense is the single.Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
You get it. Post more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollodawg
THIS ALL DAY. More explosive pass plays will win us games, not more passes. You RTGDF, get teams tired and cheating up/selling out to stop the run, then burn them over the top for big chunks. It's what Bama, Auburn, FL, and LSU have all done consistently during this streak of SEC dominance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
This thread is hilarious. You guys are arguing over 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other. Both of you want 2/3 of the plays to be running plays, aka 66%. This should typically lead to a fairly balanced offense in terms of yardage assuming one aspect is not horrible. Imagine 75 actual offensive plays. 50 are running and 25 are passes. At 4 yards per carry that would be 200 rushing yards which would be a great stat. If Dak completes about 65ish % of the attempts that would be around 18 completions. That would only take about 11 ypc to have a balanced attack that calls 66% running plays.
Like coach said you can't control the yardage but that's something you gotta consider when gameplanning. It is very plausible that running it 66% of the time would be a balanced offense yardage wise.
I like the idea of running the ball, with a pass thrown in if it's there. The simple fact that has been overlooked, is that the last few seasons, we get to 3rd and 2 and some dumbass calls a pass play when somebody besides Perk is getting ~6 yards a carry... If I see that shit again this year, I'm going to set my hair on fire...
It's a ridiculous argument to use just the QB numbers with even an outstanding runner. If course passing the ball is going to get more yards per play. But it is in no way indicative to that team being balanced in play calling. They were not balance in play calling or yardage. That's why it was the worse example you could use. They ran the ball extremely well and was efficient enough throwing the ball that they made you pay because you had to try and stop the run first. Early and into the middle of the year it was even worse. They were running it 77% of the time in some games with very little passing to support the offense. But were still able to hit some big plays because they were efficient enough throwing the ball. Bit everything and I mean that whole offense is set up off the run. Period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Then why would you want to suppress it? For the last time, I am NOT saying call 50/50 plays pass/run. I AM saying we need to have a 50/50 passing rushing offense meaning total yards not plays. Somewhere around 60-65% run and 35-40% pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
I guess it's an issue because you used Auburn and Cam Newton as an example. That example did not help your argument especially since they had more plays running and nearly 1,000 more yards by running the ball. It was a terrible example for your argument. And used only the QB stats to try and prove your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Auburn's passing is what hurt us in that game .... and against LSUQuote:
Originally Posted by Pollodawg
Numbers be damned, just get first downs when you need them, TD's when you need them, FG's when you need them and stops when you need them.
All stats can be misleading,; who can make the big play?
I wanted to use the most ridiculous running team to win a NC lately that I could think of. That's Auburn 2010. Reason? To show how important the pass is even for them. You guys keep saying that the run opens up the pass and it does but the pass also opens up the run. Yes Auburn had nearly 1,000 more rushing yards than passing yards that season but that's just 57% of their offensive production when they ran it 69% of the time. In other words that's a negative return on use (-12%) where the pass has a positive return on use (+12). They avg 6.1 yds a carry but avg 10.1 yds a pass. They scored 43% of their offensive tds from the pass despite passing it only 31% of the time. 31 passing tds 41 rushing tds and that difference can be likely assumed because they ran it most of the time inside the 5. Every 10.5 pass attempts they scored a touchdown. At that rate they would of scored 62 touchdowns passing if they had thrown it as much as they ran it. That's more touchdowns passing than the Denver Broncos just scored with Peyton setting the all-time record of tds thrown in 4 more games played. Again I love the run and it is extremely important to be a very good running team but it is clear as day that the pass is the more dangerous weapon and the more effective source of yards and touchdowns. Sabermetrics doesn't just work for baseball.**Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
Very, very few teams in college football run the ball less than 58% of the time, period. And the ones who do tend to be less talented and/or down big a lot. So the stat of SEC champions is sort of just common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
It just doesn't work like you think. That Auburn team used the pass to supplement what they were doing running the ball. Everybody just remembers that offense at the end of the season. Those last two games had the two highest passing totals because the season of them running the ball also set up those games to open up the passing. It's not just what happens in a quarter or game. The pass does get you more yards per play because of the nature of passing the ball. Let's look at the argument in reverse. How many teams have actually won the SEC or a national title by passing the ball 55% more a game? Heck how many have done it just strictly 50/50 in play calling? Find that answer you will see why running the ball more times per game is important. Yardage is much harder to determine because you can't control how many yards a play may gain. But you can make sure you are calling the right plays to be effective. With your argument on passing yards it seems you had rather throw the ball more, use the pass as the focal point of your offense. That's fine but in this league and the vast majority of time even on the national scale that does not get it done. Make no mistake, you cannot be one dimensional even by strictly running the ball. You have to be effect throwing it but throwing it off of your running game. The yards you gain is more dependent on your on personnel, what the opposing teams are given you defensively, their personnel, etc. I mean every defensive coach in this league preaches stopping the run first and is the most important component to having a good defense. And teams still want to run the ball more than throwing it against defenses who are scheming to stop it first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Not advertising throwing it more than passing. Just letting the RTGDF crowd look at a few stats. This faction seems to get a little hardheaded imo towards the run and I think it's important to understand that the offensive machine doesn't work like it's supposed to if one of the two options (pass/run) is getting neglected or overworked. They both have to be used for both to be most effective. At some point the production goes down per attempt when being overused. Teams will start stacking 9 guys in the box and you'll be essentially running straight into a brick wall. Balanced offense imo is the best offense. And balanced offense doesn't mean balanced snaps. I am very excited for our passing attack this year. That is the other big reason why I am speaking up on this. We have serious weapons all throughout the wide receiver position that we've never had at MSU. I want them to get used. When we have 2-3 serious wr threats mixed in with 100 yard running backs and a QB playing like Superman we will have the closest thing to an elite offense that MSU has ever witnessed. We can't take the easy route and just RTGDF when the potential to have a much more efficient higher scoring offense is there for the taking.