Mixon is the reason this team is successful this year..

[SladeX]

(11-28-2021, 09:41 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Tannehill is actually an interesting point. Today, he had two 100 yard rushers and yet shit the bed. A dominating run game, but a horrific performance from him. Of course, you're right about the variables. Maybe that is something I could look into. Isolate QBs that are universally considered 'good' over the past eleven years and then study if their performances are benefitted by strong running performances. That is a study I haven't done. Not sure if you're interested, but I'll do that real quick and post the results. That could be an angle that produces something. 

I had a 2 point post in regards to the statistical relationship between run and pass, etc.

First.
I recall several years ago the Patriots had an almost nonexistent running game. However, several analysts stated that their short passing game to the RBs, screens and such, were basically long handoffs, and that those plays were in fact, running plays.
With that in mind, reorienting analysis to categorize pass plays behind or near the LOS as running plays (most especially if said play involves blocking for the receiver by members of the OL), does that change any of the correlations you've been mentioning? 

2nd:
Mixon has had 2 very effective games. In both games, the passing numbers were a bit pedestrian,  but efficient. You can bet that upcoming opponents will be attempting to create a game plan that will stop the run, which will probably benefit the passing game. So in upcoming games, the running game may look pedestrian,  but the passing game will improve. In this way, each type of offense will benefit one another over time. There may be a game to game " game planning effect " that leads to ultimate success.

Extra point:
How many air Coryell type,  pass almost exclusively offenses have won a superbowl? Especially keeping point number one in mind?

Sorry Tony, this may need it's own thread...