Roethlisberger Led NFL In Big-Time Throws From Clean Pocket In 2018

[Edman]

By the logic you are following, Baltimore, Chicago, Seattle, Dallas, Buffalo, Houston, and Tennessee all should have made deep playoff runs.

Six out of those eight teams made the postseason. One of them won a playoff game.

The Steelers did neither of those things in 2018, despite their talent and minimal injuries.

Agree with it; don't agree with it. But we have a situation where "conventional wisdom" says one thing and analysis of the available data says another. This happens all the time in all kinds of circumstances. I'm going to go with the empirical data because that is how my mind works - your individual mileage may vary.

Unfortunately for the Steelers, Empirical data doesn't win football games. Two recent Super Bowls (Seattle and Atlanta) were lost because the OC decided to go with the "empirical data" and chose to throw the ball.

[Fire Goodell]

We missed the playoffs cause our FG kicker missed a game winner in week 1, and missed two against Oakland, in a game we lost by 3 points. That's how close we were to a #2 seed.

[Rotorhead]

We missed the playoffs cause our FG kicker missed a game winner in week 1, and missed two against Oakland, in a game we lost by 3 points. That's how close we were to a #2 seed.

I would even go on to say, if we had Boz from the previous year, we probably have the #1 seed.

[Mojouw]

Six out of those eight teams made the postseason. One of them won a playoff game.

The Steelers did neither of those things in 2018, despite their talent and minimal injuries.



Unfortunately for the Steelers, Empirical data doesn't win football games. Two recent Super Bowls (Seattle and Atlanta) were lost because the OC decided to go with the "empirical data" and chose to throw the ball.

Isn't the issue just converting possessions into points or the failure to do so? If so, there seems to be a fundamental assumption that running the ball creates a better chance to do that. What does that rest on?

[vasteeler]

We missed the playoffs cause our FG kicker missed a game winner in week 1, and missed two against Oakland, in a game we lost by 3 points. That's how close we were to a #2 seed.

Nu huh...Ben sucks!

[hawaiiansteeler]

Nu huh...Ben sucks!

you forgot Tomlin also...

[DesertSteel]

And the Saints didn’t win the Super Bowl because of the officials.

[Edman]

Isn't the issue just converting possessions into points or the failure to do so? If so, there seems to be a fundamental assumption that running the ball creates a better chance to do that. What does that rest on?

Years of evidence that teams with modest passing statistics and balanced offenses have won more and had greater success than one-dimensional air raids. Evidence I posted in this thread. I posted real evidence, the only answer to that is "Empirical Data" based on theory. The empirical data "says" running the ball and balance isn't conducive to winning football games, yet the Steelers failed harder than those "conventional" teams that ran the football.

[Mojouw]

Years of evidence that teams with modest passing statistics and balanced offenses have won more and had greater success than one-dimensional air raids. Evidence I posted in this thread. I posted real evidence, the only answer to that is "Empirical Data" based on theory. The empirical data "says" running the ball and balance isn't conducive to winning football games, yet the Steelers failed harder than those "conventional" teams that ran the football.

I posted a number of links that were detailed analysis of tons of actual NFL stats and results. You posted random anecdotal stuff. You have yet to demonstrate causation. How many runs equals winning? Ive supported with links a correlation between winning and rushing attempts. If you can't see the difference between those two, I refer you to the Internet.

If a really good rushing attack averages 4.5-5.0 yards per carry and a decent passing attack is 7-8 per attempt; then what is the advantage of calling a ton of running plays? You are agreeing to gain less yards because of balance?

Now if you are arguing situations such as third and short or goalline, then I'm on board. But for the rest, how many running plays is it 20? Then shouldn't 25 be even better? 30?

This is basically like when all of basketball realized a mid to long range two point shot was a giant waste of time.

If you win third down conversions and turnovers, you're gonna win a ton of football games regardless if you run or pass in some predestined ratio.

[Mojouw]

Also empirical data can't be based on theory by definition and stuff.

[Fire Goodell]

any throw with a clean pocket is a dong pass anyway

[Edman]

I posted a number of links that were detailed analysis of tons of actual NFL stats and results. You posted random anecdotal stuff. You have yet to demonstrate causation. How many runs equals winning? Ive supported with links a correlation between winning and rushing attempts. If you can't see the difference between those two, I refer you to the Internet.

If a really good rushing attack averages 4.5-5.0 yards per carry and a decent passing attack is 7-8 per attempt; then what is the advantage of calling a ton of running plays? You are agreeing to gain less yards because of balance?

Now if you are arguing situations such as third and short or goalline, then I'm on board. But for the rest, how many running plays is it 20? Then shouldn't 25 be even better? 30?

This is basically like when all of basketball realized a mid to long range two point shot was a giant waste of time.

If you win third down conversions and turnovers, you're gonna win a ton of football games regardless if you run or pass in some predestined ratio.

You posted "empirical data", but at the same time posted no real results of teams failing because they "ran the ball" too much or something, even and especially when it was working and it brought them success.

Dan Marino should be swimming in Rings in Miami if running the ball and offensive balance is unimportant. But hey, empirical data and all.

The Steelers went with the "empirical data" and were sitting at home in January. that's all that needs to be said. So maybe I don't know anything. I'm not a Steelers coach.

[st33lersguy]

Steelers have a top notch run-blocking oline excellent at opening up holes for Connor and Samuels. With Connor as the workhorse, they were winning. Ben is a future hofer but he is a gunslinger and took too many chances. I just think running the ball worked and is a recipe for success for this team. Also while Ben's ints weren't the only factor, they were a factor

[Mojouw]

You posted "empirical data", but at the same time posted no real results of teams failing because they "ran the ball" too much or something, even and especially when it was working and it brought them success.

Dan Marino should be swimming in Rings in Miami if running the ball and offensive balance is unimportant. But hey, empirical data and all.

The Steelers went with the "empirical data" and were sitting at home in January. that's all that needs to be said. So maybe I don't know anything. I'm not a Steelers coach.

I suspect we are confusing far too many things into one larger debate. I and no one else I am aware of is arguing for abandoning the running game or discarding any notion of offensive balance. What I am attempting to argue for and support with a fairly decent amount of information is the following:

1. Since about the 1990s at least and definitely in the last 10-15 years, teams have passed as the primary offensive approach to secure and gain leads. They then have rushed the ball as the primary offensive approach to hold those leads. Hence the idea that running the ball is correlated with winning but not the cause of said winning. This is a bit of shift from the style of NFL play that was prevalent in the 1970's and 1980's when most of us learned the game and when most the people talking for pay about the game played and learned it. Hence the no longer true aphorism (myth, if you will) that "Running the ball is how to win football games" took root.

2. I am questioning the overall idea that on a given 2nd and 6 play that somehow passing the ball is less likely to bring success than running the ball. This seems to be a core belief behind the "run the ball more to win" argument(s). I have not seen any information nor watched any games that seem to back up the idea that running plays are fundamentally more successful in the NFL than passing plays. If anything, the game play indicates the exact opposite. Even bad QBs can post completion percentages around 60% or greater. Average rush yards per attempt is about 4.5. For passes it is about 6.5. So 2 yards more per attempt.

3. I think that most of the examples of "If X team ran the ball in Y situation they would have had a better result." hinges on the idea that somehow a run would have extended drives, bled time, and even put up more points. Now, I have already said I agree on short yardage and goal to go situations -- I'm debating other down and distances. In that case, isn't the underlying issue converting third downs or otherwise extending drives? I mean 3 runs and a punt is not somehow better than 3 passes and a punt, right? Take the infamous Atlanta failures in the SB. If they only ran the ball everyone wails. Well, maybe. But if they had simply made first downs by ANY means -- the outcome of that game likely changes. If a team passes and fails to make first downs on crucial possessions, everyone says "Run the ball. It is how you win." If they run the ball and fail to make first downs, everyone says "Martyball! Can't go conservative and turtle up. Gotta be aggressive and put teams away!". So, basically what it really is is that teams should convert first downs and extend drives to put themselves in the best position to NOT lose the darn game -- regardless of how they accomplish that.

4. Run versus pass and winning and losing seems to be the other idea. That pass wacky teams don't win. But do run wacky teams win? When was the last rushing champ to hold a Lombardi? When was the last SB winning team (or maybe even SB appearing team) with a "Bad" QB? Maybe Grossman on the Bears or Kap on the 49ers?

I steadfastly believe that championship teams need to be able to run the ball effectively overall and better be able to do it in specific situations (the best example is in 4 minute and 2 minute situations with the lead); but there is no causal relationship between # of rushing attempts and # of wins. If rushing attempts, particularly early in games, were as related to winning as some folks seem to think, then we wouldn't see 220-230# MLBs across the league. We wouldn't see teams playing nickel alignments as essentially a base defense. We wouldn't see the almost total devaluation of space-eating no pass rush DTs. Heck, everyone would be looking for the massive MLBs and NTs that once roamed the field (Levon Kirkland and Ted Washington style guys) backed by safeties wearing shoulder pads the size of BBQ grills and ferociously crashing the line of scrimmage on every down. But looking across the NFL, you just don't see that anywhere.

[Mojouw]

I should also be clear, that I believe a ton of wacky things about football. Including but not limited to: Punting is a dumb idea at least 50% of the time. Kicking FGs is rarely the best idea. Onsides kicks are now useless and factoring them into your late-game decision making is ludicrous. Going for 2 is simply a better option than taking the PAT. Run stuffing DTs barely have point - although you should roster 1 just in case. Pass rushing is a separate skill from other components of LB play. Man coverage is not always the answer. I also honestly believe that TOP has not a ton to do with defensive performance (I position I am certain almost no one agrees with me on!). An interesting take below: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/st...-and-rest-time

"Turnovers and quick three-and-outs make a team more likely to give up points on the following drive, but this appears to have everything to do with field position and nothing to do with defensive rest time. In other words, whether it's one minute or eight minutes, knowing how long a defense has had to rest tells one nothing about how the defense will perform given its starting field position. Why is the myth that a running game can help a defense so prevalent? I suspect that a contributing factor is the conflation of pace effects (in which defenses allow fewer points if they take the field on fewer drives) with actual changes in defensive efficiency. If two teams possess the ball an equal number of times, there is nothing inherently valuable about making the other team possess the ball fewer times, because your own team will also possess the ball fewer times (unless, perhaps, an underdog is pursuing a high-variance strategy). In the end, barring defensive or special teams scores, the team with more points per drive will win, whether there are a lot of drives or few drives. But there is no evidence that time of possession helps a defense perform better when it is on the field."



Of course, any year now, some team is going to put a massive offensive line ahead of a big burly RB and make all these lightweight penetrating fronts prove they can stop a Power I focused attack 35-40 times in a row. Thus making all of this entirely moot!

[AtlantaDan]

FWIW Football Outsiders ranked Ben fifth in 2018 in DYAR, or Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement. This gives the value of the quarterback 's performance compared to replacement level, adjusted for situation and opponent and then translated into yardage.

Mahomes was first, followed by Rivers, Brees and (perhaps proving the methodology is suspect) Mr. Consistency Matt Ryan

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

[Mojouw]

FWIW Football Outsiders ranked Ben fifth in 2018 in DYAR, or Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement. This gives the value of the quarterback 's performance compared to replacement level, adjusted for situation and opponent and then translated into yardage.

Mahomes was first, followed by Rivers, Brees and (perhaps proving the methodology is suspect) Mr. Consistency Matt Ryan

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

The interesting thing about that grouping is that Ben, Rivers, and then Mahomes by a country mile were NOT throwing short of the sticks on third down (ALEX) while the rest were and counting on YAC to get them home. Not sure it means anything, but it is interesting to me. ALso funny that the stat is named after Alex Smith!