An astute reader of Sportstruths pointed out another horrible coaching decision by Giants coach Tom Coughlin at the end of the game. We previously covered the fact that he could have let the clock run down and kicked a very short field goal to win the game on the last play, but chose to give the bears an opportunity to win, which they almost did. Once Coughlin did decide to go for and get the touchdown, that put the Giants up 20-16. Coughlin then had them kick the extra point, putting the Giants up 5 (21-16). As the reader pointed out, the only play in this situation is to go for the two-point conversion, which if successful would put you up 6. Being up 4 or 5 doesn’t matter, as the bears would still need a touchdown, but if you go up 6 and the bears score a touchdown, you have the chance, although very small, that the bears will not make the extra point. Another example of a coach not thinking.
All week the Chicago newspapers and sportstalk radio have discussed how bad the bears are against the run. They talk about the fact that the Giants ran for 175 yards, which is a large amount. The discussion was that this cost the bears the game. As I have continuously pointed out, running prevents a team from scoring, as you pass to score. Game after game teams run for a lot of yardage, but don’t score. This game was a perfect example. The Giants had almost all of their rushing yards in the first 3+ quarters because they rarely passed, and they had 7 points. So, although they were running through the bears, they were trailing 16-7. It was only when the Giants passed on their last two drives that they scored touchdowns, and won 21-16. Further proof that you pass to score, and running prevents you from scoring.
1. Jeffrey Wilson on December 5th, 2007 5:40 pm
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that running prevents you from scoring. In recent seasons, you’ve had at least three backs run for 20 or more touchdowns in a season (Tomlinson, Holmes, and Faulk). In the NFL, the most conservative sports enterprise in the entire world, running the ball is supposed to increase the chances of scoring by limiting the opportunities for the other team to take the ball away, and in the NFL, turnovers are the most important factor in a team’s success on offense. Turnover ratios almost always have more interceptions than fumbles and muffs. If given the choice, teams would rather fumble than throw an interception, because you can recover a fumble, but not an interception. Also, running the ball forces the defense to move closer to the line, close gaps between lineman, and makes defensive backs cheat by “peeking” into the backfield to get a jump on run support, all of which makes play action much more effective. If you think back to the Packer/Bronco Super Bowl, one of the reasons for the Bronco “win” was their ability to wear down the Packer line (particularly Gilbert Brown). Now, passing the ball can be effective only if you have good to great passers, good to great receivers, and good to great lineman. Running doesn’t, since the QB can be a complete stiff (Bob Avellini) and you can still have an effective offense. Since I’ve been watching football, the only teams that I’d consider passing teams that have won championships are San Francisco and St. Louis, and both teams had excellent running games.
2. Larry on December 5th, 2007 9:18 pm
I’d like to respond to your well-thought-out comments. Yes, those running backs had more than 20 TDs in a season. However, I would guess that those teams passed to get the ball inside the 5, and then ran it in. I would doubt that they sustained drives down the field by running, because running might produce a first down or two, but then the drive will stall. People look at turnovers as fumbles and interceptions, but I include punts as turnovers, because you are giving the ball to the other team. While an interception might be more dangerous than a fumble, I believe far more punts result from running than from passing. I believe if teams passed more, they would punt less, and thus “turn over” the ball less. A punt is similar to many interceptions. The Packers beat the Broncos in the Super Bowl, and it was 14 bad calls against the Packers that “cost” them the game. However, if you just go by the score on the scoreboard, the reason the Packers “lost” the game is because they were conservative and ran on first downs. When the Packers did throw, they scored. So, yes, Denver did run well against them, but had the Packers not run, they would have won easily. Few passing teams have won championships because few teams were passing teams. The Charger teams under Fouts were an exception, but their defense was horrible. They wouldn’t have made the playoffs if they hadn’t been able to pass so well. Look at the top 4 teams this year–Patriots, Colts, Packers, Cowboys. All are passing teams. The Patriots are much better than they have ever been for one reason–they pass more. The Packers couldn’t run at all for most of the season, yet were undefeated. The Packers were recently outrushed by Detroit at one point in the Thanksgiving game 129-7 and led 34-12 (approximate figures). That’s because the Packers passed on almost every play, so they scored a lot.
3. Jeffrey Wilson on December 6th, 2007 6:43 am
Each of the backs who scored also rushed for at least 20 touchdowns also rushed for at least 1400 yards, and Holmes did it twice. The others (Shaun Alexander, Emmitt Smith, Tomlinson, Larry Johnson) were on playoff caliber teams, unless the coach screwed it up (KC). Without going back and looking it up, I’d have to say that the teams that produces these backs also passed the ball BECAUSE they had this level back, not IN SPITE of having a back like that. When the Packers had no running threat, almost anyone could shut them down, and they also had problems when their guards left in free agency. Now that they’ve got more experienced guards AND can run the ball (Ryan Grant), it helps the passing game. Defenses would rather give up passing yards than rushing yards, because most teams cannot pass the ball on short fields (20 & in) as effectively as they can from 20 to 20. Running the ball is mostly the same from one end of the field to the other, except when defenses bunch up to shut down the run, but the threat of the pass hinders that. The most prolific passing teams I’ve seen (Chargers and Dolphins of the 80s) didn’t win in the playoffs because they couldn’t run the ball when it counted. Their defenses were then forced to play more, and it always caught up with them. Ask Dan Marino what a good running game would have done for his game, or Donovan McNabb.
4. Larry on December 6th, 2007 8:45 am
Again, we disagree. Alexander, Smith, and Tomlinson were on teams that passed a lot. I’m not sure how much the teams Johnson was on passed. I believe these runners ran so well BECAUSE of the good passing attack these teams had, and the opposing defenses couldn’t put everyone in the box as most teams do, especially on first down. Sure, having a back that can run for 1400 yards gets you a lot of first downs. I just think it also bogs down drives unless you pass. The Packers were not shut down when they lost their guards because they couldn’t run. They were shut down because they didn’t pass aggressively, and still tried to run a lot. Ryan Grant did not come on this year until many games into the season, but the Packers were still undefeated. This is because in the games the Packers won easily and scored 30 or more points, Favre passed 45 times. They didn’t try to run, and thus scored a lot. It was the games where they did get conservative and run (Philadelphia, Denver, etc.) that were close and they could have lost. We agree that having a great running game is better than not having one, and the threat should help the passing game, but I think the Packers proved this year you don’t need a running game. The Patriots are far better than they ever were, because they pass so much more. The reason teams have trouble passing on short fields is because they don’t do slants, tight end curls, etc. You need to change the plays in the red zone, and teams don’t. That’s why so many drives bog down there–teams run the ball and have to settle for field goals. I believe the Chargers and Dolphins lost in the playoffs because their defenses were not good, not because they couldn’t run. If those teams didn’t pass all the time, they wouldn’t have made the playoffs. Teams lost to the bears in the 80s because they ran all the time. When the Dolphins beat them in 1985 and the Redskins in the 1986 playoffs, it was because they threw. When Walter Payton set the single-game rushing record (since broken) of 275 yards, the bears scored 10 points. When Ahman Green ran for 193 yards a few years ago against the Eagles, the Packers scored 14 points. The Giants ran for 175 yards this week, and until they passed on their last two drives, were losing 16-7.