Do teams run more against bad teams (1 Viewer)

[Dirty Weasel]

Figured I'd do a kind of spin-off of the earlier SOS thread. I wanted to see what the stats said about this.

Do good teams run against bad teams to eat up the clock? Do teams run against bad run defenses simply because they can? Do teams run because the pass defense of the other team is just too good? Do bad teams abandon the run because they are always behind in the game? Can a correlation really be made about a team's tendency to run against another team, based on that defense's YPC given up?

Here are the final stats of 2006, ranked in order of least YPC by a defense. The second number is the % that the opposition ran the ball:

MIN - 2.8 - 37

BAL - 3.3 - 42

PIT - 3.5 - 43

JAX - 3.5 - 45

MIA - 3.5 - 46

ATL - 3.8 - 46

NE - 3.9 - 43

DAL - 3.9 - 46

CAR - 3.9 - 47

TB - 3.9 - 50

CHI - 4.0 - 41

NYG - 4.0 - 45

OAK - 4.0 - 57

DEN - 4.1 - 45

GB - 4.1 - 46

ARI - 4.1 - 47

SF - 4.1 - 48

DET - 4.1 - 49

SD - 4.2 - 42

CIN - 4.2 - 45

KC - 4.2 - 48

HOU - 4.4 - 47

CLE - 4.4 - 51

PHI - 4.5 - 48

WAS - 4.5 - 50

NYJ - 4.6 - 46

SEA - 4.6 - 47

TEN - 4.6 - 49

BUF - 4.7 - 48

NO - 4.9 - 47

STL - 4.9 - 51

IND - 5.3 - 56

I've highlighted 3 teams. Minnesota finished at 6-10, but teams only ran on them 37% of them time. Since they only gave up 327 points (18 teams gave up more) and weren't in the lead most of the time, I am guessing teams didn't run against them because they couldn't, moreso than because they could pass against them. As for Oakland, they finished at 2-14, and teams ran on them 57% of the time. Was this because running on them was easier than passing, or because the other team was in the lead and played ball control? I'll say it was the latter, as Oakland rarely held the lead. Indy was the last team I highlighted. They finished at 12-4, but gave up a league-high 5.3YPC. Teams took advantage of this and ran 56% of the time. Why? Simply put, because they could. Not because their pass defense was all that great. But this one got me thinking... if Indy was leading in most games (which they were), aren't you supposed to abandon the run and chuck it downfield? My thought is that teams felt the IND run D was so bad, running was a faster way to make a comeback. Sounds strange, I know.

Just wanted to post this to generate some discussion on the topic.

 

[Jene Bramel]

I'm a big fan of the adage that football is the ultimate team sport. In simple terms, offenses run the football because they're exploiting a mismatch or, less often, they want to control the clock at the end. Obviously there are exceptions and most offenses would seek a reasonable run-pass balance in an ideal world. But over a sixteen game season, trends will present themselves and they're almost always based on mismatches.

We could do this for each defense in 2006, but the three teams you highlighted prove the point that "bad teams" do not necessarily face as many running plays as "good teams". The amount of times a bad team is run on because the opposing offense wants to control the clock probably isn't significant (I'm no math guy) when compared to the overall gameplan.

At first glance, the Raiders might seem to be an exception. By your stats, they were run on 57% of the time and they were clearly one of the worst teams in the league. But a closer look at the Oakland defense suggests that while they were behind early and often and subjected to a larger percentage of clock control runs, the mismatch theory is still important.

The Raider defense was much better against the pass -- two underrated man corners and decent cover players at LB and S and a pass rush that was every bit as effective on a per pass attempt basis than their overall sack numbers would suggest. The run defense on the other hand, while still solid, was relatively weaker. They could and were beaten by runs up the middle and to the strong side frequently.

But the MIN-IND dichotomy, while extreme, is the key argument against a default statement. It would be more accurate to suggest that bad run defenses get run on more than good run defenses. Nearly every team with a percentage above 48 on your list has a glaring deficiency along the front seven. The opposite is true for the teams below 45. It's a who's who of some of the best front sevens in the NFL.