The Bull Ratio

[Snake]

37 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I always love when people quote rushing attempt stats with a correlation toward winning without understanding that correlation doesn't always equate to causation. Teams tend to run the ball a lot when they're either up big or up late and teams that are up big or up late tend to win a lot of football games.

So what you are saying is the team that scores the most points wins. 

 

Just do that. 

[UpstatePanther]

1 hour ago, je1005 said:

*Winning intensifies*

[ellis]

Some teams thrive off a 60/40 pass attack.

This particular core of offensive personnel, historically, doesn’t aim for that, nor do they particularly want to aim for it. 

[Black&Blue]

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Teams tend to run the ball a lot when they're either up big or up late and teams that are up big or up late tend to win a lot of football games.

Did you even read the graphic I posted?  It says nothing about having to be run heavy.  You can run it 10 times under my formula.

[ellis]

Panthers are typically between 60-70 offensive snaps per game. (66.7 per game in 2015 for context)

35 rush attempts isn’t “run heavy”.

[Black&Blue]

Just to be clear, "touches" do not exclusively mean carries.  I thought this was pretty well understood by football fans.  The concept is to funnel the offense through it's best players.  It can be 80/20 pass, for all I care 

[ellis]

Super Bowl champion Brian Billick has a similar formula (Toxic Differential) that serves as a pretty good blueprint for success. 

My understanding is that NFL gameplans are meticulously crafted to align with a) philosophy (formula), and b) opposition. Bill Walsh, for example, scripted his first 15-plays (WCO staple). Walsh also aimed for balance, in terms of touches per skill position player.

Nothing was accidental. 

Situations can alter such a blueprint mid-game. But every team has a blueprint. 

[ellis]

1 minute ago, Black&Blue said:

Just to be clear, "touches" do not exclusively mean carries.  I thought this was pretty well understood by football fans.  The concept is to funnel the offense through it's best players.  It can be 80/20 pass, for all I care 

I’m not giving you any pie. 

[LinvilleGorge]

41 minutes ago, Snake said:

So what you are saying is the team that scores the most points wins. 

 

Just do that. 

Yep, always.

No, what I'm saying is that people put way too much stock into cherry picked stats in terms of winning without actually thinking about the way the game of football works.

[ellis]

We’re gonna have to agree to disagree, respectfully. 

[LinvilleGorge]

12 minutes ago, Black&Blue said:

Just to be clear, "touches" do not exclusively mean carries.  I thought this was pretty well understood by football fans.  The concept is to funnel the offense through it's best players.  It can be 80/20 pass, for all I care 

Do you understand that part A of your graphic is 35 rushing attempts? While part B is a combination of touches for about 8 different possible players.

Do you really think you're providing any type of insight with this?

[ellis]

This is a philosophical blueprint for an offensive scheme, not madden sliders. 

 

[LinvilleGorge]

8 minutes ago, je1005 said:

This is a philosophical blueprint for an offensive scheme, not madden sliders. 

 

Yes, if you have 35 rushing attempts and/or your #1 WR, all of your RBs combined, all of your TEs combined, and your QB who has led you team in rushing more often than not during the course of his career all combine for 50 touches among them you have a good chance of winning.

This isn't some ground breaking analysis. It's common sense. Teams that are up big or up late tend to run the ball more often, so there's oftentimes a strong correlation between rushing attempts and winning. A team that has historically had a weak WR corps where their TE is usually their #1 passing target and strong RBs as well as one of the best rushing threats at QB the game has ever seen probably does well when those guys combine for a lot of touches if for no other reason than that probably has a pretty strong correlation toward having a lot of long drives and lengthy time of possession, both of which generally correlate toward winning.

I honestly don't think most people understand how stats works and that's why we see so many ridiculously cherry picked stats in sports trotted out like some magic equation to foolproof winning.

[ellis]

Enjoyed the debate, George. 

Gotta sleep.