Brian Billick for FOX Sports: Running the balI, is it that important?

[Botched]

Running the Ball: Is it that important?

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/B...-league-120512

The modern history of football — roughly the first decade of the Super Bowl era — was shaped by the old school running attacks that dominated the game in the ’60s and ’70s. The relentless nature of Vince Lombardi’s Packers — and their simple power sweep elevated to brutal perfection — along with Don Shula’s Dolphins and the early incarnation of the Steelers’ dynasty under Chuck Noll all shared the crucial qualities of a punishing, efficient running game and a suffocating defense. (It didn’t hurt, of course, that this was also the beginning of the cinematic documentation and celebration of those same teams through the seminal work of NFL Films.)
Though we are now 35 years into a new era, marked by the liberalized passing rules put through in the ’70s and refined since then, it’s amazing how people are still swayed by those indelible images of Larry Csonka bulldozing up the middle or Franco Harris slicing through gaping holes in the line. Pundits still talk about how important it is to establish the running game and, in turn, stop the run.
Of course, the diminished need for a powerful running game has been well documented in recent years....

continued at link
--------------------------------------------------------

Like I've been saying for a while...no, it isn't. Why anyone wastes first round draft picks on running backs anymore is beyond me. Billick thinks running has become more significant this year, but I still disagree.

[Mr. Sinister]

BALANCE!

It's anoying how certain networks always emphasize the "Quarterback Quarterback Quarterback Quarterback" stuff. Passing is important, so is runing the ball. People always like to point to Brees, Rodgers, Brady, etc, but they're exceptionally great quaterbacks. And in all honesty, New Orleans had their most successful years when they were throwing at will, and were also top 5 in rushing. Devaluing the running game is about the dumbest thing anyone could do.

You take pressure off of your offensive line, so defenders don't have to tee off as much.

You control the clock, limiting your opponents possesions

Your lineman get the opportunity to go forward, and impose their will on the opposing dlineman, tiring them out, unless you go no huddle, but breaking them down in the run game has it's benefits as the game goes on.

You take pressure ff of your quarterback, not having to have your offense be 100% reliant on his arm, and you expose him to less hits.

Depending on how successful your offense is at moving the chains, you'll stand a better chance of keeping your defense fresher.

Whether or not the individual running back is still important is debatable, but running the ball is necessary. It's still what the game was built on. You'll havw far more success with BALANCE than you would with the other two extremes (Laser Light Show/3 Yards And A Cloud Of Dust).

When great passing offenses run into great passing defenses who dare them to run, they have a hard time doing it. Not every team has Aaron Rodgers on it, so why theoretically cut one of your hands off by passing all the time?

Look no further than Andy Reid, who probably would be having far more success if would just run the ball more, than using his wacky run/pass ratio.

[Botched]

And yet none of the recent champions needed that balance to win.

[Mr. Sinister]

And yet none of the recent champions needed that balance to win.

Until they (Giants) ran the football in the postseason... and won. Going up against the number one seed, who couldn't run at all, also helped them out in playing better defense. Same thing with the Packers. They fed James Starks in the 2010 run, and won. And the Saints were like top 6 or 7 in rushing in '09.

2008 Steelers? Top 10 in rushing
2007 Giants? Top 10 in rushing
2006 Colts? Ran the ball better in the postseason, and defended the run better, and won.

[MattFancy]

Like I've been saying for a while...no, it isn't. Why anyone wastes first round draft picks on running backs anymore is beyond me. Billick thinks running has become more significant this year, but I still disagree.

I would say it is. Of the teams currently in the top 10 in rushing, 7 of them are .500 or better.

Now I agree that unless you're getting a stud like AP in the 1st, you can certainly wait to draft RBs in the later rounds.

[HeluCopter29]

And yet none of the recent champions needed that balance to win.

I would disagree with that strongly.

[Botched]

Who ran in the postseason? Not the Giants last year. They were 6th in postseason rushing yards, and they're only ranked that high because they played more games than all of the teams below them.

James Starks had one good game in the Packers' run, and averaged less than 4ypc. That whole Starks thing was a great example of how little individual running backs matter. I remember when Ryan Grant went out, it was supposed to be a huge blow to the Packers in the playoffs. Of course as we all know by now, running backs can be replaced easier than any other position.

---------- Post added December-6th-2012 at 11:42 AM ----------

Until they ran the football in the postseason... and won. Going up against the number one seed, who couldn't run at all, also helped them out in playing better defense. Same thing with the Packers. They fed James Starks in the 2010 run, and won. And the Saints were like top 6 or 7 in rushing in '09.

2008 Steelers? Top 10 in rushing
2007 Giants? Top 10 in rushing
2006 Colts? Ran the ball better in the postseason, and defended the run better, and won.

So in the past 6 years, two Super Bowl winners were in the top 1/3 of the league in rushing. That's a negative correlation if anything.


---------- Post added December-6th-2012 at 11:44 AM ----------

I would disagree with that strongly.

Can you explain why?

[Warhead36]

You pass the ball to get a lead and you run it late. But a passing game is exponentially more important. It's easy to run if you can pass but if you can't pass, it's hard to win.

[Mr. Sinister]

So in the past 6 years, two Super Bowl winners were in the top 1/3 of the league in rushing. That's a negative correlation if anything.
.

No it isn't. 2 out of the three teams who were not top 10 rushing during the season (NY and IND) had over 100 yards rushing in the Super Bowl.

The only one that didn't, was the Packers, who benefitted from 3 turnovers, and didn't turn it over once, which was the difference in the game, and prior to the SB, even they ran for over 100 yards in every game except the NFC Divisional Playoff round, where Rodgers played out of his skull, and they didn't even need to run, because ATL could get zero pressure on him. You have to run the ball at some point.

I imagine that it would be pretty tough to go Air Coryell throughout an entire postseason without having success on the ground at some point, which brings me back to the point that not every QB can be Aaron Rodgers, or Tom Brady. The formula for sustained success at the NFL level, is balance.

[TheLongshot]

You'd think Redskins fans would be able to pay attention to their own team and realize that a lot of the success that RG3 is having is because of a strong running game. Hell, even RG3 says so.

Also, funny coming from Billick, who did depend a lot of the running game when he was the head coach of Baltimore.

[Botched]

No it isn't. 2 out of the three teams who were not top 10 rushing during the season (NY and IND) had over 100 yards rushing in the Super Bowl.

The only one that didn't, was the Packers, who benefitted from 3 turnovers, and didn't turn it over once, which was the difference in the game, and prior to the SB, even they ran for over 100 yards in every game except the NFC Divisional Playoff round, where Rodgers played out of his skull, and they didn't even need to run, because ATL could get zero pressure on him. You have to run the ball at some point.

I imagine that it would be pretty tough to go Air Coryell throughout an entire postseason without having success on the ground at some point, which brings dme back to the point that not every QB can be Aaron Rodgers, or Tom Brady. The formula for sustained success at the NFL level, is balance.

Rushing for over 100 yards as a team doesn't really mean anything. 100 yards isn't even NFL average.

The Patriots are the perfect model for sustained success in the NFL. Their best rushing rank in the last decade was 6th in 2008. That was also the only year they didn't make the playoffs. The years of their last two Super Bowl appearances they ranked 13th and 20th, respectively. The Colts also had sustained success, and they've been a mediocre -at best- rushing team forever. I think we all know the real key to sustained success is a quarterback, or in a couple of cases, a strong defense.

A good running game is nice, but it just is not necessary. The statement has become cliche, but the NFL is a passing league now.

---------- Post added December-6th-2012 at 12:44 PM ----------

You'd think Redskins fans would be able to pay attention to their own team and realize that a lot of the success that RG3 is having is because of a strong running game. Hell, even RG3 says so.

We ranked 30th in rushing in 2010, and 25th in 2011. Then we got a quarterback and suddenly shot up to 1st. If we were already good at running and then brought Bobby in, that would be a good point, but it's pretty obvious that the run game benefited from the quarterback.

[Mr. Sinister]

Rushing for over 100 yards as a team doesn't really mean anything. 100 yards isn't even NFL average.
The Patriots are the perfect model for sustained success in the NFL.

Until they started to struggle running the ball, became unbalanced ( along with a terrible defense), and stopped winning Super Bowl's?

Their best rushing rank in the last decade was 6th in 2008. That was also the only year they didn't make the playoffs. The years of their last two

.

Because they didn't have their HOF quarterback, who they were 5 games better with the previous season, thus weren't as explosive in the passing game, and missed the playoffs with an 11-5 record, which is normally good enough to win a division in some seasons?

We ranked 30th in rushing in 2010, and 25th in 2011. Then we got a quarterback and suddenly shot up to 1st. If we were already good at running and then brought Bobby in, that would be a good point, but it's pretty obvious that the run game benefited from the quarterback.

Yes, we got a quarterback, who excels at throwing the ball, but also is such a threat running the ball, that defenses have to respect his ability to take off, and along with our current system (which would not be effective... at all... if it wasn't for his ability to run) and along with a very good, decisive rookie running back, who breaks tackles, and has very good vision, and is durable.

Morris deserves a ton of credit for our rushing attack as well. They both have been beneficial to each other during this season. One would not be the same without the other. If you put Roy Helu, or Evan Royster, or Joe Schmo back there, our running attack would not be the same. I guarantee you that.

I think we all know the real key to sustained success is a quarterback, or in a couple of cases, a strong defense.

That model works during the regular season, but not in the playoffs, where the competition is tougher. In most cases, that potent passing attack will run into a great defense, and an offense that can control the ball, and keep them off the field, wearing down that strong defense, and limiting their mistakes. And to be clear, that's not the kind of offense I want.

I want an offense that can score through the passing game, and be able to run the ball effectively, and control the clock when necessary. That kind of offense is almost impossible to beat, because there are very few flaws to take advantage of. It's harder when you have a pass heavy offense that is reliant on a superior talent at QB to be flawless. And when he isn't, they struggle.

Even as great as Peyton was with the Colts, Edgerrin James was crucial in that offense, before they became more RBBC towards the back half of the '00s, and put more responsibility on Peyton's shoulders.

[Hitman21ST]

We ranked 30th in rushing in 2010, and 25th in 2011. Then we got a quarterback and suddenly shot up to 1st. If we were already good at running and then brought Bobby in, that would be a good point, but it's pretty obvious that the run game benefited from the quarterback.

...who runs.

Our RB is tied for third in the league for rushing. Our QB is 21st in the league.

The run game benefitted from the QB, but not nearly as much from his passing ability as his ability to run.

[TheLongshot]

Rushing for over 100 yards as a team doesn't really mean anything. 100 yards isn't even NFL average.

For a team? Sure it doesn't mean that much. (League average right now is 115 yards) For an individual? It is still the benchmark for a quality rushing performance. Average per gain is probably even more important.

The Patriots are the perfect model for sustained success in the NFL. Their best rushing rank in the last decade was 6th in 2008. That was also the only year they didn't make the playoffs. The years of their last two Super Bowl appearances they ranked 13th and 20th, respectively. The Colts also had sustained success, and they've been a mediocre -at best- rushing team forever. I think we all know the real key to sustained success is a quarterback, or in a couple of cases, a strong defense.

Well, there is a difference between being able to run the ball, and it being the focus of your offense. Let's take last year's Patriots team. Yeah, they rated 20th in yards, but they were 3rd in rushing TDs. Also, a lot of teams do use WCO that do subsitute short passes for runs, but a RB is still very important for those offenses, and those guys still do need to be able to run the ball.

We ranked 30th in rushing in 2010, and 25th in 2011. Then we got a quarterback and suddenly shot up to 1st. If we were already good at running and then brought Bobby in, that would be a good point, but it's pretty obvious that the run game benefited from the quarterback.

Not really that obvious when you consider that we had a collection of guys before, and now we have Morris. The combination of the way he runs and the fact that he can stay healthy is a big upgrade over what we had previously, and no doubt that even if we didn't have RG3, we wouldn't be in the bottom third of the league in rushing.

Yes, QB is important, but so is the running game. It isn't an either-or thing.

[HeluCopter29]

Who ran in the postseason? Not the Giants last year. They were 6th in postseason rushing yards, and they're only ranked that high because they played more games than all of the teams below them.

James Starks had one good game in the Packers' run, and averaged less than 4ypc. That whole Starks thing was a great example of how little individual running backs matter. I remember when Ryan Grant went out, it was supposed to be a huge blow to the Packers in the playoffs. Of course as we all know by now, running backs can be replaced easier than any other position.

I think you're confusing running the ball at a high/elite level and being able to run the ball effectively. Neither the Giants nor the Packers were able to run the ball at an elite level but they did prove that they could run the ball well enough that defenses had to plan on it.

James Starks is a great example of how his game in Philly really changed the dynamic of how the Packers offense was treated. Sure, he didn't play great but defenses had to game plan for him more meaning they had to do less on Aaron Rodgers. The Giants were the same way with Bradshaw.