Do teams win because they run, or run because they win?

Question

It's an old cliché that a good running game wins, but is that really true? Or do teams pile up running yards because of other factors?

What do you think? Please try to make a clear argument either way.

Answer 1

Winning teams tend to pile up rushing yards because they run the ball more in the second half to chew up the clock (it's also the reason the winning team usually has a huge edge in time of possession). The bottom line is, you can win in any of a million different ways in football. Traditionalists always talk about running the ball and stopping the run, but the NFL's best RB (Tomlinson) didn't reach the Super Bowl, and the worst run-stoppers won the whole thing. You can win with mediocre quarterbacks (Trent Dilfer, Jim McMahon), mediocre running backs (Michael Pittman, Earnest Byner, Antowain Smith) and mediocre defense (1999 Rams, 2006 Colts). The only constant I can see in all 41 Super Bowl Champions is strong offensive line play. Unfortunately, sports cliches are often the hardest ideas to shake, and I expect you'll hear "pound the football to win" a few hundred times this season.

Answer 2

I think that teams run to control the game (if they have a good running game). If they control the game with a running game on offense then their defense stays fresh and is more capable of dominating as well. A great defense does a lot for a running game as well, if the defense is keeping the other teams offense down then you are looking at a great opportunity to run down the other team with the running game. Also a good running game will allow an average passing game to look great. So to answer the question a good running game does win but it also needs help from other aspects of a game. Baltimore won a SB by having a good running game and a GREAT defense. The Bears got to the Super Bowl last year on the same idea.

Other teams do win and have staggering running yards...take EVERY team that Marty ever coached, they run the ball well but got most of their yards because of Martyball where you get ahead by a touchdown or two in the second quarter and run it just to barely stay ahead and grind down the clock. Now last year he had LT and that was an impressive running game but he also did it with KC and Cleveland back in the day; it bites the team from time to time but they also win a lot with impressive rushing stats.

Answer 3

God Bless you....

This is a great question...

I think that the GREAT teams all had running games that they could rely on. They didn't have to beat you with the run, but when it came down to crunch time--3rd and 1, 4th and 1, goal line--they knew they could count on the running game to get it done. They could count on getting enough yards that the running game was enough of a threat that other teams couldn't just rush the passer.

Teams that can't count on the running game have a hard time controlling the line of scrimmage, have a hard time controlling the clock, and generally have a hard time winning games against a fast defense.

Case in point were the Florida teams under Steve Spurrier. Until they got smacked around by Nebraska, they didn't use the running game much. After that, they put more emphasis on running the ball, and won a national title the very next year. They got beat so badly by Nebraska because NU knew that Spurrier wasn't commited to the run, so they simply lined up and went after the QB. If you don't have to worry about stopping the run, stopping a passing game is easy.

But the opposite can be true, also. You need to throw the ball effectively to stop a team from bringing up the safeties to stuff the run. But overall, running the ball effectively is the best path to long term sucess--high school, college, or pro.

Answer 4

You still need a balanced attack so defenses have to play all the options. Otherwise they can stack the deck against a team that can only run or pass. Additionally, defense is a big reason teams win especially come playoff time.
Notice for the first time Indy believed they could and did run the ball on any team and their defense came around at the right time.

To Austin:
Dude, give it a rest and try to answer the question asked and not your usual diatribe about USC football. It becomes quite annoying time and time again.

Answer 5

Well look at all the teams that won the Superbowl, about 90% of them had a great running game. But most of them also had a good passing game and a good defense. I would say the running game makes up about 60-70% of the team's success. Look at the Browns when they had Jim Brown. But you still need a passing game and a defense, look at San Fran last year.

Answer 6

Teams that run, win. It establishes a tempo and chews up the clock. If you have a lead, and you can run it down the field for a score (TD or FG) or even punt and pin them back, you know towards the end of the game they will have to throw to play catch up, thus making them one dimensional.

You don't have to be the best running team (or best running back) to win, just be effective. Running teams can set the pace. The control the clock. They can make their opponent one dimensional.

Answer 7

Running is the foundation of an offense it sets up big play action passes and also moves the chains

As a QB I know the value of a good oline and great backs

Teams win because they have a good running game

Answer 8

Rushing yards don't win games. Its the ability to run in order to cause the opposing defense to defend it. THis ability opens up the passing game. if a team were only 1 dimensional they would lose the majority of their games. Check out the bears last year. Un real defense, passing game was suspect but because of Thomas Jones's abilityto consistantly get 4 yards a carry they went to the superbowl. gotta be able to run to win

Answer 9

Dude- To answer your questions, go to www.usctrojan.cstv.com.

Become a Trojan fan

Give support to the mighty Trojan

Fight On!!