Quote:
Originally Posted by Rain Man
The only other argument is for the balance of the game, but I don't think that's an issue for the NFL. They did a show on "The Forward Pass" on NFL Network a couple of months ago, and I was struck when one of the people said, "We may be on the verge of seeing an NFL game where a team doesn't run the ball at all." I think the NFL doesn't mind that.
|
I don't know if you've followed any of the analysis on run-pass balance on Advanced NFL Stats, but it very interesting. For many teams, running the ball is a wasted down.
http://www.advancednflstats.com/sear...ax-results=100
(links within the articles are worth tracking down too).
The article on historical analysis of run-pass balance was particularly good.
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010...-analysis.html
Especially this passage:
Quote:
To me, this suggests defenses have largely remained unchanged, despite the focus on pass rushing beginning with players like Lawrence Taylor. Defenses appear to stubbornly focus on the run, making certain that they keep running efficiency under control. But this focus comes at the expense of passing efficiency. Defenses are happy to let passing efficiency 'be what it will be' in their pursuit of stopping the run.
Defenses may not have a choice. Perhaps once running efficiency gets much over 4 YPC, stopping an offense becomes extremely difficult. With 3 tries to get 10 yards, perhaps 4 YPC is a magic number that the basic rules of football dictate. It could be that run defense is simply inelastic. The way modern defensive schemes are constructed, defenses are unable to shift toward stopping passes more effectively. Whatever the reason, defenses appear either unable or unwilling to adapt.
|
If it the above conjecture about run defense inelasticity is accurate, rule changes would be the only way to restore run-pass balance to the game.