Rush vs. Pass: Then and Now

by JapanJohn on Feb 4, 2012 10:15 PM EST

“The NFL is a passing league now.” That statement is accepted as truth. And, with Marino’s all-time passing yardage record being beaten this season, it’s hard to argue. But, does effective passing lead to more post-season success than effective rushing? Today, I want to explore that question, looking not only at the recent era, but comparing nowadays against a by-gone era. Put on your white coats and join me, won’t you, in the statistics laboratory.

OBJECTIVE:

Explore effective rushing vs. effective passing as they correlate to playoff and Superbowl appearances, now and then.

DEFINITION OF TERMS:

Effective rushing/ passing = Yards per attempt

Now = 2009-2011

Then = 1979-1981

PROCEDURE:

Take the top ten teams in the categories of rushing and passing effectiveness, and see if those teams made the playoffs and/or Superbowl in that season.

RESULTS:

2009-2011: Of the 36 playoff teams…

12/36 teams had top-ten effective rushing attacks…33%

19/36 teams had effective passing... 53%

2009-2011: Of the 6 Superbbowl teams…

1/6 had top-ten effective rushing…17%

6/6 had top-ten effective passing…100%

note: NY Giants are dead last this season in rushing yards per attempt.

-----------------

1979-1981 (An arbitrarily chosen by-gone era): Of the 30 playoff teams…

11/30 had top-ten effective rushing…37%

17/30 had top-ten effective passing…57%

1979-1981: Of the 6 Superbowl teams…

2/6 had top-ten effective rushing…33%

4/6 had top-ten effective passing…66%

CONCLUSIONS:

Passing effectiveness correlates much more strongly to playoff and Superbowl appearances than rushing. It does now, and it did even 30 years ago.

OPINION:

Recently, I wrote a fanpost about drafting a “bruiser RB.” I felt our run game wasn’t strong enough. I’m changing my tune. Now, I think we need to concentrate fully on the pass game this off-season. The spread offense suddenly seems less distasteful, assuming we can get more yards per attempt (i.e., fewer 5-yard slants and INTs). In the draft I hope to see two new WRs, another LT, possibly a Center, and if Buddy Nix thinks there’s a potentially great QB, then I’m OK with that, too (although I still think Fitzpatrick can be effective). Your thoughts?

Just another great fan opinion shared on the pages of BuffaloRumblings.com.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Buffalo Bills, New York Giants

Comments

Great Analysis

And I totally agree. I think we need to get resign Stevie, Chandler, Bell. Draft a WR, and a TE in the mid to late rounds. But we need to address Defense and get pass rushers early and often in the draft. and pick up an SLB.

With the 10th Pick in the 2012 NFL Draft the Buffalo Bills select Dont'a Hightower LB Alabama.

by tomcs on Feb 4, 2012 10:55 PM EST reply actions

I like the way Pittsburgh almost always switches between offense and defense with their first round pick year to year. That being said, I’m on board with WR, QB or LT being taken at the top (sorry, Ryan). Although, I wouldn’t shed any tears if we grabbed a stud LB or DE.

by JapanJohn on Feb 4, 2012 11:22 PM EST up reply actions

Yes, same. I want to see us get Donta Hightower. I think he can play 4-3 DE, and may be able to play SLB. He would give us great versatility.

With the 10th Pick in the 2012 NFL Draft the Buffalo Bills select Dont'a Hightower LB Alabama.

by tomcs on Feb 4, 2012 11:58 PM EST up reply actions

Nice John. Thanks for the work.
But Chan sometimes needs to stop giving up on the running game.

I’d rather pound the ball sometimes in the first half, which may eventually yield to big runs in the second half
VS
Crappy short passes for 3 downs and then punt.

"My new cat just farted on my lap. Smells like Bills football." BG.

by SERGEANT MAJOR THOR on Feb 4, 2012 11:03 PM EST reply actions

in theory it could work..

but in practice, pounding the ball leads most directly to defenses putting 8 guys in the box, which in turn opens up opportunities for deep passes. This plays directly into Fitz’ weakness.

Gailey, in trying to play to Fitz’ strength, spreads out the defense with 5 wr sets and has Fitz do what he does best: read the defense, throw a short pass to the most open receiver. The result of this game plan is opponents using more nickel and dime coverage (only 5 or 6 in the box), and that leads to opportunities for our rbs to make big gains. This is the primary reason our backs had success this year. I truly believe it was NOT our Oline, but Gailey’s game planning.

by tarvismonroe on Feb 5, 2012 8:19 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

This is what I believe also

This offense is designed to make a smart quick reading but average skilled qb look good, and a really good rb look great.
Change the scheem up to a run first/non spred and the house of cards crumbles to the ground.

Please base your arguments in provable facts instead of pulling stuff out of your rear. -CanadianBillsFan- This is why talk is cheap because the supply always exceeds the demand.

by jbbillfan on Feb 6, 2012 12:15 AM EST up reply actions

I’m definitely not saying run less. Rather, in a world of limited resources, I hope we concentrate fully on the passing attack during our offensive draft picks in 2012.

by JapanJohn on Feb 4, 2012 11:19 PM EST reply actions

Effective rushing/ passing = Yards per attempt

yards per attempt, of what? like, what was your scale from “effective” to ineffective? this is also a small sample group, but I am curious where you draw the line between effective rushing/passing… and ineffective- before I decide what this post is getting at, or if I agree or disagree.

ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE

by ThaRealTruth on Feb 5, 2012 2:53 AM EST reply actions

as in.....

yards per attempt of… .7 – might be deemed pretty ineffective, while 5 for rushing, or 10 for passing, would be effective. but rushing for 10, and passing for 30 is far more than just effective, i think you would agree? what is your standard here? How many yards for each category equate to the subjective view of “effective”, in your eyes?

ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE

by ThaRealTruth on Feb 5, 2012 2:56 AM EST up reply actions

Effective means you were ranked in the top ten for yards per rush or pass attempt. The actual number is not what’s being looked at, just the top ten ranking.

by JapanJohn on Feb 5, 2012 3:38 AM EST up reply actions

fair enough

thanks.

ABAYARDE IS NOSTRADAMUS JUST WATCH WE WILL NOT YIEALD TO NOBODY YOUR SOUL WE WILL TAKE

by ThaRealTruth on Feb 5, 2012 4:45 PM EST up reply actions

The sample size is small. I had a squirmy 1-year old in my lap while researching this, so I had to cut off the numbers somewhere. However, both samples indicate to me that top ten rankings in yards per pass attempt were related to playoff and Superbowl appearances far more than rushing yards per attempt.

by JapanJohn on Feb 5, 2012 3:48 AM EST reply actions

Good job!

The reason why I prefer the running game at this juncture, is because a solid running game can cover up a lot of holes on your team.

Let’s look at Denver, Baltimore, San Fran, Jets. None of these teams have a great QB. The running game disguised the flaws of the QB, and they relied on a great rushing attack and solid defense to win games.

Right now, I don’t believe we have that QB that we can a build a top flight passing game around. Until we get that QB, it doesn’t make sense to build your team around the pass. We should continue to build up our defense and develop a solid rushing attack. If we can do that, playoffs are very likely.

I would like to see our team look like the Texans, Giants, Falcons. Balanced teams, whose can play great Defense, rush the ball effectively, and pass when necessary to win games

by doctork44 on Feb 5, 2012 6:22 AM EST via mobile reply actions

I agree with this...

the data may show correlation, but it doesn’t show causation. This is because we don’t know the reason these teams had successful passing/running games. Look at Carson Palmer for example. He was #3 in YPA this year…. is that because he is a top 10 passer? Or, was it because he had a dynamic running back opening up lanes, and an offensive philosphy that encouraged deep passes?

I LOOOOVE stats, but they are so hard to look at in isolation, because they compiled in a controlled environment… they are the result of a million external forces.

by tarvismonroe on Feb 5, 2012 8:30 AM EST up reply actions

The problem to me....

Is that while I agree a strong passing game is more effective than a strong running game, you have to have the pieces for it to work. The run game is a strength on our roster, whereas I fear the pass game will remain a liability as long as Fitz is under center, due to lack of accuracy down field and inconsistency. Of course, the pass game will get better if we add a true #2 wide receiver, a dynamic tight end and maybe a healthy version of Roscoe Parrish, but the pass game revolves around the QB, and I don’t think it’ll ever be a strength with Fitz.

On the other hand, we have two extremely talented players at RB, and Chan needs to figure out how to use them in tandem, which he’s failed to do the last couple years. I agree that if you have to pick one, pass over run is a no-brainer, but I also believe you have to be realistic about what’s on the roster. I still think it’s preferable to go with a strength than to try and force more out of a weakness than its capable of giving you.

by Let's Talk About Tex Baby on Feb 5, 2012 10:36 AM EST up reply actions