Rushing + Completions = Wins?

[Flash7]

With Pep Hamilton arriving as the Colts new offensive coordinator, there seems to be a renewed focus on our running game. To some, this is not welcomed as it would take the game out of Andrew Luck's hands, arguable our best player. Especially after a year with so much success slinging the ball.

 

However, there are some statistics that show that if a team can average a total of 50 combined rush attempts and completions, it creates a formula for success. (i.e. 25 rushes and 25 completions per game, or 20 rushes and 30 completions per game, etc...).

 

You can read about it in the article below.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-magic-number-is-50.html

 

After reading the article, what are your thoughts of having a more balanced attack, with a focus of having the "Magic 50?"

[Smurphy1]

With Pep Hamilton arriving as the Colts new offensive coordinator, there seems to be a renewed focus on our running game. To some, this is not welcomed as it would take the game out of Andrew Luck's hands, arguable our best player. Especially after a year with so much success slinging the ball.

 

However, there are some statistics that show that if a team can average a total of 50 combined rush attempts and completions, it creates a formula for success. (i.e. 25 rushes and 25 completions per game, or 20 rushes and 30 completions per game, etc...).

 

You can read about it in the article below.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-magic-number-is-50.html

 

After reading the article, what are your thoughts of having a more balanced attack, with a focus of having the "Magic 50?"

 

I don't think you generally have success because your rushing + completions is greater than 50. I think it's the other way around. You have more then 50 because you are a successful team. Good teams usually run more plays and have a higher completion percentage, shocker.

[ColtStrong]

Scoring more points than the other team = wins.

[Flash7]

Scoring more points than the other team = wins.

Thanks for your enlightened contribution...didn't know that. ;)

[Fx Stryker]

Scoring more points than the other team = wins.

Spoken like John Madden.

I actually think this is a quote.

[NewColtsFan]

I don't think you generally have success because your rushing + completions is greater than 50. I think it's the other way around. You have more then 50 because you are a successful team. Good teams usually run more plays and have a higher completion percentage, shocker.

 

I think it's interesting, but what I found surprising is that the Colts were an exception to the rule last year and we were NOT noted.  No mention of the Colts at all.

 

I believe we averaged about 27.5 rushes per game last year.   And I believe Luck averaged about 21.8 completions per game.  I think the combined number would be below 49.5 which is clearly below 50.    You'd think a story that built around this 'magic number' would note an exception to the rule -- especially when the exception was last year.

 

For what's it's worth,  I think this formula, more than 50 rushes and completions per game,  is what we're trying to achieve this year.     I think we'd like to run the ball roughly, 30-32 times per game....  (yes, there will be games with higher and lower numbers)  but we're talking on average 30-32 times.    

 

And....

 

I think we'd like to get roughly 21-23 completions on roughly 35-37 pass attempts per game...

 

We're only talking about 3-4 more runs per game on average....   and 3-4 less pass attempts per game,  but with roughly the same number of completions.    That's how Luck's pass completions percentage will go up.   Fewer attempts,  roughly the same number of completions.

 

But the two key numbers will add up to more than 50.....

 

Apologies for so many numbers in the post....   I know that drives some people a little crazy (hey,  sometimes it drives ME crazy) but wanted to lay-out how this could happen....

[MrNLM]

With Pep Hamilton arriving as the Colts new offensive coordinator, there seems to be a renewed focus on our running game. To some, this is not welcomed as it would take the game out of Andrew Luck's hands, arguable our best player. Especially after a year with so much success slinging the ball.

 

However, there are some statistics that show that if a team can average a total of 50 combined rush attempts and completions, it creates a formula for success. (i.e. 25 rushes and 25 completions per game, or 20 rushes and 30 completions per game, etc...).

 

You can read about it in the article below.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-magic-number-is-50.html

 

After reading the article, what are your thoughts of having a more balanced attack, with a focus of having the "Magic 50?"

I see what your getting at but it is too vague.

 

His info shows nothing on the yards gained on said rushes/completions.

 

Based on that alone you could argue that all, some, or none of the rushes/completions were for negative yards or no gain at all... and that does not make a winning team.

 

I know, I know... that seems unrealistic but, games aren't won by teams that can say they did this religiously. Your rushes/completions have to translate to points almost always and when they don't your defense is supposed to do its job and stop the other team as well.

 

This makes me think of the game when the Colts were playing the Dolphins in Miami. Our offense was only on the field for a combined 12-13 minutes... AND WE WON THE GAME!!!

 

In that game the Colts had 11 rushes and 14 completions. Dolphins had 49 rushes and 22 completions.

 

That game came down to two things... blown coverage on a short pass to Garcon that went to the house for 48 yards and sound defense from a tired defensive squad for the final 3 minutes of the game.

[Smurphy1]

Spoken like John Madden.

I actually think this is a quote.

 

The offense is looking to score here.

[Flash7]

I don't think you generally have success because your rushing + completions is greater than 50. I think it's the other way around. You have more then 50 because you are a successful team. Good teams usually run more plays and have a higher completion percentage, shocker.

You're right, but I think there's more to it than that. Of course, good teams usually run more plays and have a higher completion percentage, however, the Colts were a very good team with a relatively low completion percentage. For many reasons, we defied the odds. Luck completed 13 passes and 14 passes in the two Texans games. That's not a lot of completions. (I know we won one, thus proving why we continued to defy the odds).

 

To me, this article in particular shows that we are moving in a direction that has has statistical relevance in winning. I think that with Pep's new offense we'll have dramatically more completions and possibly with less attempts. We'll run more and will get closer to, or above, the "magic 50." 

[TKnight24]

Well, my formula that I use in NCAA video games is very simple

Control the ball, & play hard nose Defense

I usually average 4-5 minute drives (Which plays in my favor because when you play online, each quarter is 5mins only)

So the longer you hold the ball and score, the more pressure you put on the other team cause they have little time to score/keep up with you which takes their run game away cause they can't waste anytime or they'll lose the game. This leads to me having more defensive plays being made and usually I get a few defensive touchdowns

Now, if the can do that this year our pass rush and secondary will be tested. And hopefully they answer the call very well. Pep coming in is a bonus because Luck and Co. controlled the ball very well at Stanford and it fatigued defenses like crazy. It's gonna be interesting watching this offense work this season

[TonyBungee]

You're right to an extent, but there's more to it than that. Of course, good teams usually run more plays and have a higher completion percentage, however, the Colts were a very good team with a relatively low completion percentage. For many reasons, we defied the odds. Luck completed 13 passes and 14 passes in the two Texans games. That's not a lot of completions. (I know we won one, thus proving why we continued to defy the odds).

 

To me, this article in particular shows that we are moving in a direction that has has statistical relevance in winning. I think that with Pep's new offense we'll have dramatically more completions and possibly with less attempts. We'll run more and will get closer to, or above, the "magic 50." 

 

I think Smurphy was right, and I'd take it a step father.  Good teams spend more time per game with a lead, sometimes a large lead, and the rushing attempts get skewed a bit by the amount of time trying to use up clock.  And I'm not sure I'd call last year's Colts a "very good team."  I love them, but they were overachievers and scored several come-from-behind victories.  So with a couple of exceptions, they didn't do much running to eat up the clock.   I will agree with you that they defied the odds. 

 

I just think the article is a bit of a stretch, plus i didn't notice it even mentioning defense. 

 

Edit;   one more thing-  you know who else was in the "not-mentioned-in-between" category?  Both of last year's SuperBowl teams. 

[oldunclemark]

I don't think you generally have success because your rushing + completions is greater than 50. I think it's the other way around. You have more then 50 because you are a successful team. Good teams usually run more plays and have a higher completion percentage, shocker.

 

   Smurph-man is exactly right....

 

   Lombardi, with all his years, is telling us that eagles tend to fly a lot more than turkeys...

 

Of course...completions plus runs help you win....and stronger teams that complete passes tend to lead so they get the chance to  run more....especailly near the goal line or late in the game

 

If you run for first downs..you tedn to keep running the ball...//The only offensive plays that are not runs or pass completeions are pass incompletions and punts

 

Teams that cant run or complete passes early in a game tend to trail and throw more passes...many incomplete.

 

Completions leads to more completions and runs. Incompletions lead to punts..

 

Its like saying that golfers who finish in the Top-10 in tournaments make and miss more putts than golfers who dont...

 

Of course they do....golfers who dont make the cut make and miss less putts...because they play less holes..

 

 

 

Its June.

[Flash7]

I think Smurphy was right, and I'd take it a step father.  Good teams spend more time per game with a lead, sometimes a large lead, and the rushing attempts get skewed a bit by the amount of time trying to use up clock.  And I'm not sure I'd call last year's Colts a "very good team."  I love them, but they were overachievers and scored several come-from-behind victories.  So with a couple of exceptions, they didn't do much running to eat up the clock.   I will agree with you that they defied the odds. 

 

I just think the article is a bit of a stretch, plus i didn't notice it even mentioning defense. 

 

Edit;   one more thing-  you know who else was in the "not-mentioned-in-between" category?  Both of last year's SuperBowl teams. 

I think that you and Smurphy are right.

 

What the article has done is look at winning teams and find a commonality. What they've found is that the winning teams that have reached the rushing + completions = 50 number have won 66% of the time. That of course means that 33% of the time, this rule didn't apply. That's probably where we fell last year.

[NewColtsFan]

I see what your getting at but it is too vague.

 

His info shows nothing on the yards gained on said rushes/completions.

 

Based on that alone you could argue that all, some, or none of the rushes/completions were for negative yards or no gain at all... and that does not make a winning team.

 

I know, I know... that seems unrealistic but, games aren't won by teams that can say they did this religiously. Your rushes/completions have to translate to points almost always and when they don't your defense is supposed to do its job and stop the other team as well.

 

This makes me think of the game when the Colts were playing the Dolphins in Miami. Our offense was only on the field for a combined 12-13 minutes... AND WE WON THE GAME!!!

 

In that game the Colts had 11 rushes and 14 completions. Dolphins had 49 rushes and 22 completions.

 

That game came down to two things... blown coverage on a short pass to Garcon that went to the house for 48 yards and sound defense from a tired defensive squad for the final 3 minutes of the game.

 

 

You're focusing on one game.    Anything can happen in one game.

 

The stats were used in the context of a season.    Things tend to even out over a season.

[ColtStorm_12]

Pep knows Andrews strengths.....bottom line.  He will put him in a position to do what he does best.  I see Andrew being more efficient and spreading the ball around even more. NO worries here at all.

[MrNLM]

You're focusing on one game.    Anything can happen in one game.

 

The stats were used in the context of a season.    Things tend to even out over a season.

I realized that after I posted it... c'est la vie

[chad72]

The ability to play any kind of game on offense with a balanced approach helps an O play against different style of Ds.  There is no sense in trying to hit your head against the wall that is the 49ers D by running against that front. 49ers rarely substitute thus allowing you to exploit a few passing matchups against their LBs and safeties, IMO by changing personnel on O constantly.  Seahawks substitute much more, so going no huddle against that team bodes better, IMO.

 

Each opponent will provide matchups you have to win by executing on the field.

 

As a rule of thumb, extending drives by keeping a D on their toes with good play calling helps on O. Getting off the field ALWAYS helps on D, via punts or turnovers. Law of averages normally work in your favor if you do those 2 consistently.

[Superman]

I'm thinking this is just kind of where the lines cross, not necessarily that one is a direct result of the other.

 

First of all, 25-30 completions is a lot in any game, by any quarterback. Tom Brady had fewer than 25 completions in 11 games last year. Peyton Manning in 7 games. So for a quarterback to have 25+ completions in any game probably means your passing game is clicking and your offense is moving the ball well.

 

Then, 20-25 rushes per game probably means your rushing attack is effective.

 

These two assumptions speak to an efficient offense, one that is converting on third down, probably scoring touchdowns at a high rate, and not turning the ball over. They're probably winning the time of possession battle more often than not. So it's no surprise to look back and see that teams with a combined 50+ win more games. Those are the teams that have a good offense, probably a good quarterback, and can run the ball at least reasonably well.

 

So rather than pushing to have an offense that can hit the combined 50+, you should be looking for a capable and efficient quarterback, and you should focus on having an offensive line that can help produce a decent run game. You reverse engineer those results.

[BlueCollarColts]

I dont think there is a set number of rushes and pass attempts we need, but I think we should run the ball more, Vick Ballard showed promise last year and I think he can be a good starting running back in this league, Ahmad Bradshaw showed when healthy he is a top 15 running back in the NFL, and with Bradshaw having another good running back in Ballard on the team to split carries with, hopefully it means a healthier Bradshaw, and I think we can have a very good running game as long as the O-line plays as well as they should, and we know our passing attack will be good (already dreaming of a Luck bomb to Heyward-Bey for a TD )

[Gavin]

Im hoping for us to average out to 60-40 pass run come the end of the season....The real difference coming in the type of pass, Instead of a pass 20 yards down field or longer Ill be looking for more  8-10 yard pass plays tied in with some timely long passes

[NewColtsFan]

Im hoping for us to average out to 60-40 pass run come the end of the season....The real difference coming in the type of pass, Instead of a pass 20 yards down field or longer Ill be looking for more  8-10 yard pass plays tied in with some timely long passes

 

I think you'll be disappointed.

 

We were roughly 60-40 last year.   I think the numbers are roughly 59-41.   So, to go to 60-40 is the wrong way.

 

I think you're likely to see something closer to 55-45 pass-run ratio....     The run has to be enough of a threat to ease the pressure on the passing game....

[Malakai432]

This makes me think of the game when the Colts were playing the Dolphins in Miami. Our offense was only on the field for a combined 12-13 minutes... AND WE WON THE GAME!!!

In that game the Colts had 11 rushes and 14 completions. Dolphins had 49 rushes and 22 completions.

That game came down to two things... blown coverage on a short pass to Garcon that went to the house for 48 yards and sound defense from a tired defensive squad for the final 3 minutes of the game.

Yeah that game was crazy, didn't Manning also hit Dallas for a massive catch? I remember they were slaughtering us with the wild cat.

[MrNLM]

Yeah that game was crazy, didn't Manning also hit Dallas for a massive catch? I remember they were slaughtering us with the wild cat.

I'm sure he did. Clark had something like 150 yards and a touchdown that game.

[Gavin]

I think you'll be disappointed.

 

We were roughly 60-40 last year.   I think the numbers are roughly 59-41.   So, to go to 60-40 is the wrong way.

 

I think you're likely to see something closer to 55-45 pass-run ratio....     The run has to be enough of a threat to ease the pressure on the passing game....

I was sitting here thinking 55-45 as well, As long as they compliment each other Im fine

[Valpo2004]

With Pep Hamilton arriving as the Colts new offensive coordinator, there seems to be a renewed focus on our running game. To some, this is not welcomed as it would take the game out of Andrew Luck's hands, arguable our best player. Especially after a year with so much success slinging the ball.

 

However, there are some statistics that show that if a team can average a total of 50 combined rush attempts and completions, it creates a formula for success. (i.e. 25 rushes and 25 completions per game, or 20 rushes and 30 completions per game, etc...).

 

You can read about it in the article below.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-magic-number-is-50.html

 

After reading the article, what are your thoughts of having a more balanced attack, with a focus of having the "Magic 50?"

 

Time of possession. . . it's that simple.  It stands to reason that the team that holds the ball more, runs more plays and has more chances to score.  

 

It also stands to reason that they are likely moving the ball down the field and/or that their defense is getting the ball back quickly and preventing the other team from scoring.  

 

It's really nothing new.

[SilentHill]

With Pep Hamilton arriving as the Colts new offensive coordinator, there seems to be a renewed focus on our running game. To some, this is not welcomed as it would take the game out of Andrew Luck's hands, arguable our best player. Especially after a year with so much success slinging the ball.

 

However, there are some statistics that show that if a team can average a total of 50 combined rush attempts and completions, it creates a formula for success. (i.e. 25 rushes and 25 completions per game, or 20 rushes and 30 completions per game, etc...).

 

You can read about it in the article below.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-magic-number-is-50.html

 

After reading the article, what are your thoughts of having a more balanced attack, with a focus of having the "Magic 50?"

 

I stopped reading the article, why does rushing attempt = completion? Shouldn't rushing attempt = pass attempt?

 

So confusing, either way I don't think it's a formula for success. It all depends on the players. I'd argue that 25 completions by luck is at least 200x more productive than 25 rushes by Brown.