Why I'm fine with running the ball more than passing it

  • Welcome to America's Finest Sports Forum and Podcast!

    afsportsforum.com is one of the largest online communities covering San Diego sports. We host a regular podcast during the major seasons. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

WonderSlug

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2005
8,654
807
350
50
www.boltsplanet.com
I'm fine with running the ball more than passing it.

Running the ball and a good defense wins Super Bowls. Having a top passing offense isn't as important.


SB Winner ---- Rushing Offense Rank ---- Passing Offense Rank ---- Scoring Defense Rank
================================================== =================

2005 Steelers: #5 rushing, #25 passing, #3 scoring defense
2004 Patriots: #7 rushing, #13 passing, #2 scoring defense
2003 Patriots: #27 rushing, #7 passing, #1 scoring defense
2002 Bucs: #27 rushing, #16 passing, #1 scoring defense
2001 Patriots: #13 rushing, #21 passing, #6 scoring defense
2000 Ravens: #5 rushing, #23 passing, #1 scoring defense
1999 Rams: #5 rushing, #1 passing, #4 scoring defense
1998 Broncos: #2 rushing, #6 passing, #8 scoring defense
1997 Broncos: #4 rushing, #10 passing, #7 scoring defense


Over the past 9 years, 6 Super Bowl winners had a rushing offense in the top 8, and 3 with a passing offense in the top 8. In addition, only one of those times with a passing offense in the top 8 did they have a running game that didn't match.

It seems it's twice as likely that a team wins the Super Bowl having a top eight rushing game and great defense than a top 8 passing game and great defense.

The modus operandi for a Super Bowl winning team is a top 8 rushing offense combined with a top 8 scoring defense. 6 of the last 9 Super Bowl winners fit this mold.

By the way, let's look at the last two seasons for us.

In 2004, our rushing offense was #6, and our passing offense was #18. Our scoring defense was #11. Top 8 rushing offense and only an average passing offense. We won the division and made the playoffs. Not good enough with the scoring defense though, and we lost early in the playoffs.

In 2005, our rushing offense was #9, and our passing offense was #12. Our scoring defense was #13. Our passing offense improved, but our running game and scoring defense declined. We didn't make the playoffs.

What did our 1994 team do? #7 rushing offense, #12 passing offense, #9 scoring defense. Almost fit the mold for a Super Bowl winner didn't it?

Marty's following a well-entrenched Super Bowl formula of running the ball and maintaining a great scoring defense.
 

SDC-IL

BoltTalker
Oct 3, 2006
155
9
90
48
WonderSlug said:
I'm fine with running the ball more than passing it.

Running the ball and a good defense wins Super Bowls. Having a top passing offense isn't as important.


SB Winner ---- Rushing Offense Rank ---- Passing Offense Rank ---- Scoring Defense Rank
================================================== =================

2005 Steelers: #5 rushing, #25 passing, #3 scoring defense
2004 Patriots: #7 rushing, #13 passing, #2 scoring defense
2003 Patriots: #27 rushing, #7 passing, #1 scoring defense
2002 Bucs: #27 rushing, #16 passing, #1 scoring defense
2001 Patriots: #13 rushing, #21 passing, #6 scoring defense
2000 Ravens: #5 rushing, #23 passing, #1 scoring defense
1999 Rams: #5 rushing, #1 passing, #4 scoring defense
1998 Broncos: #2 rushing, #6 passing, #8 scoring defense
1997 Broncos: #4 rushing, #10 passing, #7 scoring defense


Over the past 9 years, 6 Super Bowl winners had a rushing offense in the top 8, and 3 with a passing offense in the top 8. In addition, only one of those times with a passing offense in the top 8 did they have a running game that didn't match.

It seems it's twice as likely that a team wins the Super Bowl having a top eight rushing game and great defense than a top 8 passing game and great defense.

The modus operandi for a Super Bowl winning team is a top 8 rushing offense combined with a top 8 scoring defense. 6 of the last 9 Super Bowl winners fit this mold.

By the way, let's look at the last two seasons for us.

In 2004, our rushing offense was #6, and our passing offense was #18. Our scoring defense was #11. Top 8 rushing offense and only an average passing offense. We won the division and made the playoffs. Not good enough with the scoring defense though, and we lost early in the playoffs.

In 2005, our rushing offense was #9, and our passing offense was #12. Our scoring defense was #13. Our passing offense improved, but our running game and scoring defense declined. We didn't make the playoffs.

What did our 1994 team do? #7 rushing offense, #12 passing offense, #9 scoring defense. Almost fit the mold for a Super Bowl winner didn't it?

Marty's following a well-entrenched Super Bowl formula of running the ball and maintaining a great scoring defense.
Though, the pass offense should be top half as it states in all but 2.
 

exodus

Well-Known Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,282
118
200
I like running the ball too. I like being defensive. But if we're not rushing for first downs, we still need to be able to convert in the air on 3rd down at least some of the time.
 

WonderSlug

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2005
8,654
807
350
50
www.boltsplanet.com
leisure said:
we all agree SLUG but we are tired of running on third and long
I'll agree with that.

Running with less than 5 yards to go is a no brainer for us.

Running with 8+ yards to go, on third down, all the time, is indeed a bad idea.
 

Critter

BoltTalker
Aug 21, 2006
619
21
130
51
WonderSlug said:
I'm fine with running the ball more than passing it.

Running the ball and a good defense wins Super Bowls. Having a top passing offense isn't as important.


SB Winner ---- Rushing Offense Rank ---- Passing Offense Rank ---- Scoring Defense Rank
================================================== =================

2005 Steelers: #5 rushing, #25 passing, #3 scoring defense
2004 Patriots: #7 rushing, #13 passing, #2 scoring defense
2003 Patriots: #27 rushing, #7 passing, #1 scoring defense
2002 Bucs: #27 rushing, #16 passing, #1 scoring defense
2001 Patriots: #13 rushing, #21 passing, #6 scoring defense
2000 Ravens: #5 rushing, #23 passing, #1 scoring defense
1999 Rams: #5 rushing, #1 passing, #4 scoring defense
1998 Broncos: #2 rushing, #6 passing, #8 scoring defense
1997 Broncos: #4 rushing, #10 passing, #7 scoring defense


Over the past 9 years, 6 Super Bowl winners had a rushing offense in the top 8, and 3 with a passing offense in the top 8. In addition, only one of those times with a passing offense in the top 8 did they have a running game that didn't match.

It seems it's twice as likely that a team wins the Super Bowl having a top eight rushing game and great defense than a top 8 passing game and great defense.

The modus operandi for a Super Bowl winning team is a top 8 rushing offense combined with a top 8 scoring defense. 6 of the last 9 Super Bowl winners fit this mold.

By the way, let's look at the last two seasons for us.

In 2004, our rushing offense was #6, and our passing offense was #18. Our scoring defense was #11. Top 8 rushing offense and only an average passing offense. We won the division and made the playoffs. Not good enough with the scoring defense though, and we lost early in the playoffs.

In 2005, our rushing offense was #9, and our passing offense was #12. Our scoring defense was #13. Our passing offense improved, but our running game and scoring defense declined. We didn't make the playoffs.

What did our 1994 team do? #7 rushing offense, #12 passing offense, #9 scoring defense. Almost fit the mold for a Super Bowl winner didn't it?

Marty's following a well-entrenched Super Bowl formula of running the ball and maintaining a great scoring defense.

Running the ball is fine.

What your chart doesn't show is how many passing attempts per game. It only shows a ranking.

You must be more balanced and throw more than 4 out of 24 offensive plays to have any continued success.

We will always be a good running team with LT and Turner.

Sprinkle in more passes to keep defenses off-balance and guessing.

There is your SB formula.
 

MMJ4mil

BoltTalker
Oct 3, 2006
113
11
80
I could care less on how the chargers do their plays, as long as we win by more than 10 pts.
 

Trumpet_Man

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2006
17,404
598
350
WonderSlug said:
I'm fine with running the ball more than passing it.

Running the ball and a good defense wins Super Bowls. Having a top passing offense isn't as important.


SB Winner ---- Rushing Offense Rank ---- Passing Offense Rank ---- Scoring Defense Rank
================================================== =================

2005 Steelers: #5 rushing, #25 passing, #3 scoring defense
2004 Patriots: #7 rushing, #13 passing, #2 scoring defense
2003 Patriots: #27 rushing, #7 passing, #1 scoring defense
2002 Bucs: #27 rushing, #16 passing, #1 scoring defense
2001 Patriots: #13 rushing, #21 passing, #6 scoring defense
2000 Ravens: #5 rushing, #23 passing, #1 scoring defense
1999 Rams: #5 rushing, #1 passing, #4 scoring defense
1998 Broncos: #2 rushing, #6 passing, #8 scoring defense
1997 Broncos: #4 rushing, #10 passing, #7 scoring defense


Over the past 9 years, 6 Super Bowl winners had a rushing offense in the top 8, and 3 with a passing offense in the top 8. In addition, only one of those times with a passing offense in the top 8 did they have a running game that didn't match.

It seems it's twice as likely that a team wins the Super Bowl having a top eight rushing game and great defense than a top 8 passing game and great defense.

The modus operandi for a Super Bowl winning team is a top 8 rushing offense combined with a top 8 scoring defense. 6 of the last 9 Super Bowl winners fit this mold.

By the way, let's look at the last two seasons for us.

In 2004, our rushing offense was #6, and our passing offense was #18. Our scoring defense was #11. Top 8 rushing offense and only an average passing offense. We won the division and made the playoffs. Not good enough with the scoring defense though, and we lost early in the playoffs.

In 2005, our rushing offense was #9, and our passing offense was #12. Our scoring defense was #13. Our passing offense improved, but our running game and scoring defense declined. We didn't make the playoffs.

What did our 1994 team do? #7 rushing offense, #12 passing offense, #9 scoring defense. Almost fit the mold for a Super Bowl winner didn't it?

Marty's following a well-entrenched Super Bowl formula of running the ball and maintaining a great scoring defense.
I keep telling these heathens but they do not listen. My work is 24/7 with these meatheads. :icon_banana:

It is easier to hate than to understand why it is the way it is and just start dropping the F bombs.
 

Critter

BoltTalker
Aug 21, 2006
619
21
130
51
Trumpet_Man said:
I keep telling these heathens but they do not listen. My work is 24/7 with these meatheads. :icon_banana:

It is easier to hate than to understand why it is the way it is and just start dropping the F bombs.
Oh please.

This is one shallow analysis.

It says nothing of attempts per game.

We would still have a top rushing attack with LT and Turner with more pass attempts.

You cannot run 20 out of 24 times in a half and expect to keep the defense off balance.

Christ, the Ravens were running a base 4-4-3 and we kept running dive plays.

The fact that you defend this approach really brings your football knowledge into question.
 

PhillyChargerFan

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2006
1,853
278
240
48
Critter said:
Running the ball is fine.

What your chart doesn't show is how many passing attempts per game. It only shows a ranking.

You must be more balanced and throw more than 4 out of 24 offensive plays to have any continued success.

We will always be a good running team with LT and Turner.

Sprinkle in more passes to keep defenses off-balance and guessing.

There is your SB formula.
EXCELLENT POINTS!!!!!!!!!:icon_toast:
 

darkcharger

BoltTalker
Sep 22, 2006
35
4
70
47
Nice post.

I don't think anyone here disagrees that a successful running game is key to winning and that the Chargers should depend more on their running game. However, what these numbers don't indicate is that passing is indeed required as well to keep defenses honest. One only needs to look at the current success of the Chicago Bears and you can clearly see where our team could be from an offensive standpoint. We have arguably an equal if not better defense and a much more potent offense to be sure than da Bears.

Running the ball 90% of the time when you have a 3 possession lead definitely makes sense when playing against a top-notch defense like the Ravens who live off of turnover points but that was not the case last weekend. Chargers were up 6 freakin' points. That's a one possession lead that needed to be insured not protected.

Could we have won the game with the strategy we used last weekend? Of course we could have, if a lot of things didn't happen to hurt us including missed tackles/penalties/botched snaps. Would we have had a better chance with a more balanced offense that still leaned more towards the run? Most definitely. I think that is the biggest distinction that needs to be made; pick a strategy that gives us the BEST chance to win. Instead of being afraid to lose, trust your players and believe you can win. GO BOLTS! :bolt:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ntman68

Trumpet_Man

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2006
17,404
598
350
Critter said:
Oh please.

This is one shallow analysis.

It says nothing of attempts per game.

We would still have a top rushing attack with LT and Turner with more pass attempts.

You cannot run 20 out of 24 times in a half and expect to keep the defense off balance.

Christ, the Ravens were running a base 4-4-3 and we kept running dive plays.

The fact that you defend this approach really brings your football knowledge into question.
Shallow ? I think it speak volumes.

It establishes a solid versus a "shallow" premise to work forward.

You keep referencing keeping teams "off balance" which implies a 50/50 offense.

The limited stats presented clearly refute any claims to having "balance" to win the Super Bowl.

Clearly, the teams which have won 6 out of 9 times had certain ingredients you can not dismiss.

Empirically the winners show a propensity to run the ball.

5 out of 9 winning Super Bowl teams had TOP 5 rushing offenses whereas only ONE team has a TOP 5 passing offense out of the last 9 teams who won the big enchilada.

Hell just look at what was posted and you can see the trend which works more often than not.
 

Trumpet_Man

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2006
17,404
598
350
darkcharger said:
Nice post.

I don't think anyone here disagrees that a successful running game is key to winning and that the Chargers should depend more on their running game. However, what these numbers don't indicate is that passing is indeed required as well to keep defenses honest. One only needs to look at the current success of the Chicago Bears and you can clearly see where our team could be from an offensive standpoint. We have arguably an equal if not better defense and a much more potent offense to be sure than da Bears.

Running the ball 90% of the time when you have a 3 possession lead definitely makes sense when playing against a top-notch defense like the Ravens who live off of turnover points but that was not the case last weekend. Chargers were up 6 freakin' points. That's a one possession lead that needed to be insured not protected.

Could we have won the game with the strategy we used last weekend? Of course we could have, if a lot of things didn't happen to hurt us including missed tackles/penalties/botched snaps. Would we have had a better chance with a more balanced offense that still leaned more towards the run? Most definitely. I think that is the biggest distinction that needs to be made; pick a strategy that gives us the BEST chance to win. Instead of being afraid to lose, trust your players and believe you can win. GO BOLTS! :bolt:
Consider teams such as the Bears are showing a lot of the playbook whereas we have not been forced to show it to any team - yet. This helps later in the year and playoffs.
 

Rule12b

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2006
444
105
140
48
Trumpet_Man said:
Consider teams such as the Bears are showing a lot of the playbook whereas we have not been forced to show it to any team - yet. This helps later in the year and playoffs.
Maybe I am crazy here, but my friend, I would gladly have given away a few pages of our playbook to get the W in Baltimore. It is a 16 game season, not 60, every game counts. We gotta play to win, not to escape.

Remember, I am a Marty fan and I favor the run, but the extent to which it saw action Sunday, and the situations in which the run was called, were not, in the opinion of this observer, well considered.
 

Trumpet_Man

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2006
17,404
598
350
Rule12b said:
Maybe I am crazy here, but my friend, I would gladly have given away a few pages of our playbook to get the W in Baltimore. It is a 16 game season, not 60, every game counts. We gotta play to win, not to escape.

Remember, I am a Marty fan and I favor the run, but the extent to which it saw action Sunday, and the situations in which the run was called, were not, in the opinion of this observer, well considered.
If Merriman wraps up and time expires, I suspect you would be happy and looking at every single stat we dominated.

Or if we do not get those two false starts and force the Ravens to march 90 yards versus 50 or so, hmmmm ???

Sure we could have mixed in the pass but the run was working. It was there for the taking so why not?
 

darkcharger

BoltTalker
Sep 22, 2006
35
4
70
47
While I am not in the Hate Marty camp either (not yet at least), I would like to believe that I would have still voiced some concern over the run only strategy even if we had won that game. I had the same misgivings during the 3rd quarter of the Raider game.

With so many punts/short drives by our offense in the 2nd half, I don't think the "run was working" IMO. If it were indeed working, we would have had more TDs or at least more field goal attempts; what we ended up with was giving the opposition more opportunities instead.
 
M

matilack

Guest
leisure said:
we all agree SLUG but we are tired of running on third and long
EXACTLY, it prove Marty has no confidence in big Phil.

Marty needs to swallow his pride, and his thirty year arrogance. And grow up with the game.

I hope he turns it around, we will be freakin awsome if he does. Id call SuperBowl right now.
 

Rule12b

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2006
444
105
140
48
Trumpet_Man said:
If Merriman wraps up and time expires, I suspect you would be happy and looking at every single stat we dominated.

Or if we do not get those two false starts and force the Ravens to march 90 yards versus 50 or so, hmmmm ???

Sure we could have mixed in the pass but the run was working. It was there for the taking so why not?
This is a very fair assumption, and after a few visits with the Octobolt, I might agree. However, we dominated the Raiders too, but I remained critical of the playcalling in the 3rd quarter. If the stop had been made, I'd be only slightly less irritated at the game management I witnessed.

Look, I am not a Marty-hater, quite the opposite. However, he is not above criticism, only A.J. is.:lol:
 
M

matilack

Guest
Rule12b said:
This is a very fair assumption, and after a few visits with the Octobolt, I might agree. However, we dominated the Raiders too, but I remained critical of the playcalling in the 3rd quarter. If the stop had been made, I'd be only slightly less irritated at the game management I witnessed.

Look, I am not a Marty-hater, quite the opposite. However, he is not above criticism, only A.J. is.:lol:
Our D was exhausted by that time, they probably would have scored anyway.
 

Shamrock

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2006
11,141
1,167
350
55
If SD had a 21 point lead, then the 2nd half playcalling would have been perfect. But, with a lead that could be taken away with one lucky bounce of the ball, the playcalling was horrid.

This game alone should get Marty fired.

The worst part is that he doesn't own up to his mistakes. He's not a man, IMO. Just a cowardly, chickenshit finger pointer .....
 

Shamrock

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2006
11,141
1,167
350
55
leisure said:
when have you ever heard Marty get up at the Podium and say "I take full responsibility" :icon_shrug:
He had that "I learned my lesson" speech last year, but now we know he lied. He didn't learn shit.

A man is accountable for his actions. Marty isn't a man.
 

BFISA

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2005
41,136
2,142
350
Shamrock said:
He had that "I learned my lesson" speech last year, but now we know he lied. He didn't learn shit.

A man is accountable for his actions. Marty isn't a man.
:icon_eek: :icon_rofl:
 

MasterOfPuppets

Charger fan since 1979
Aug 8, 2006
3,284
347
290
47
Tijuana, Mexico
Trumpet_Man said:
I keep telling these heathens but they do not listen. My work is 24/7 with these meatheads. :icon_banana:

It is easier to hate than to understand why it is the way it is and just start dropping the F bombs.
Do you trully believe that this team does better when it runs,runs,runs than when it mixes it up?

Just look at the first drive of not only last game but many Chargers games, they come out running and throwing and lokk like they are going to win by 30, then Marty goes way too conservative and thing fall apart
 

foober

BoltTalker
Aug 17, 2006
2,943
199
270
66
If a team doesn't have a balanced attack its going to have big trouble with winning in the nfl.
 

Boltjolt

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2006
4,538
341
310
Las Vegas, NV
WonderSlug said:
I'll agree with that.

Running with less than 5 yards to go is a no brainer for us.

Running with 8+ yards to go, on third down, all the time, is indeed a bad idea.
Not being so predictable and actually TRYING to win a game with a balanced attack is what id like. I dont mind running the ball, but like Leisure said.......3rd and 9, 3rd and 12 just dont cut it.

Have a killer instinct wouldnt hurt either but this is all a pipe dream. Marty will never change which will be his downfall after the season.
Hey maybe throw on first down once in a while just might shock the shit out of a team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WonderSlug

PhillyChargerFan

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2006
1,853
278
240
48
Another thing that is escaping the thought process of you Marty supporters is the league is set up for passing attacks now. A DB can barely look at a reciever without a flag being thrown (for an example of this see Jammer). So WHY aren't we taking advantage of this? AJ also has TALL recievers, most DB's are short let Rivers throw a jump ball. I don't want an Eagles attack of 75% pass and 25% run, but give me a balance, ESPECIALLY against good teams.
 

Trumpet_Man

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2006
17,404
598
350
PhillyChargerFan said:
Another thing that is escaping the thought process of you Marty supporters is the league is set up for passing attacks now. A DB can barely look at a reciever without a flag being thrown (for an example of this see Jammer). So WHY aren't we taking advantage of this? AJ also has TALL recievers, most DB's are short let Rivers throw a jump ball. I don't want an Eagles attack of 75% pass and 25% run, but give me a balance, ESPECIALLY against good teams.
What is escaping most of you is the fact of what happens to the athlete on the defensive side of the ball with the new passing rules ?

The DB's certainly are not going to get bigger.

They get faster and sacrifice body mass to compensate and this is what we are seeing so that DBs can compete in today's era.

Now place yourself on the offensive side of the ball when you see a general movement in the NFL to have faster secondaries.

How do you attack secondaries who are lighter but faster now? Do we go toe to toe with big WR's ?

There was an article posted earlier in the year where Bill Parcell's spoke somewhat cryptically of his intentions to counter this new passing rules era. This is why they and teams like San Diego picked up dudes like Manumaleuna.

The thought process is to load up with jumbo O-lines to exploit the secondaries by pounding the lighter faster guys and wear them out.

The stats in the Ravens games showed we dominated (except for the score). The game plan was working until we had a series of player miscues, INT, dual false starts, muffed snaps and missed FG's. It is exceedingly rare for a Marty coached team to have so many mental lapses and anyone of which, if corrected, is proabably enough to win the game.