I’ve been noticing a lot of chatter recently about the Browns inability to run the ball having an effect on how poor their passing game has been. Inadequinn had this to say on Wednesday, specifically in relation to the deep passing game:
“But you have to understand, the best thing to open up things downfield is to have a running game to get more production there. So that’s something we’re trying to get better at, so when we do have the play-action fakes they’re more meaningful.”
On a base level, I understand the logic. If an offense isn’t running the ball well, a defense can sit back and play the pass and vice versa.
Having said that, I’m not totally sure this relationship actually exists. I want to believe it does because it seems to make sense, but I think there are other factors we have to at least consider.
Most notably, what Inadequinn’s talking about appears to relate directly to the idea of deception. In other words, Inadequinn’s saying, “When the defense knows what we’re doing, they’re going to stop us.”
In my mind, this suggests that the Browns offense is incapable of out-executing the opponent’s defense. Obviously, there are plenty of situations within an NFL game - we’ve all seen them - where the defense, the offense, the fans, and the guy selling cotton candy all know what kind of play is coming. I’m referring to third and long, the two minute drill, fourth and one…
These tend to be the sequences that dictate the outcome of a game. If Inadequinn’s implying that on 3rd down and 17 with 2:20 left in the fourth quarter and the Browns down by 7, he has to have had a successful running game (however that’s defined) prior to this moment in order to get the 18 yard completion downfield that he needs…well, I need help understanding this.
Of course, the rate of success on that play isn’t going to be as high as the rate of success on a 3rd and 3 - but I’d argue that that’s a “no matter what” scenario. Neither conversion rate should have much to do with how well, overall, the team has passed and/or ran the ball earlier in the game.
The good teams execute and the bad ones don’t.
And the Browns, let’s just be honest, probably aren’t a very good football team.
Further, I think it’s fair to argue that the relationship between passing well and running well is at least somewhat reciprocal. What I mean by this is that a football game has to start somewhere - offenses and defenses begin the first quarter with expectations about what their opponent is capable of. If the Browns have proven that they can’t throw the ball, as they have, then the defense is free to stop the run until the Browns demonstrate an ability to throw the ball. If that demonstration never comes, then it seems unfair to criticize the running game for not being able to pass the ball. Isn’t it also the fault of the passing game that there’s no running game?
The link up above takes you to an article that will certainly give anyone who hated taking statistics in college (Dad.com, I’m looking at you) an extreme headache, but it’s statistical analysis that attempts to establish the correlation between running efficiency and passing efficiency to a team’s win-rate, as well as how interconnected running well and passing well are, if good offenses are good at both.
Surprisingly, the analysis actually suggests that good teams aren’t efficient at both the pass and the run - they’re much more efficient at the pass. This coincides with a few other research pieces I’ve been reading that argue teams win by throwing the ball well, which I believe has a lot to do with the pass being a high risk-high reward proposition. Throwing well cuts down on the risk and elevates the reward…the result is an explosive offense.
Food for thought dog, get a plate.
