Which running games were good at what? (2008)

by shake n bake on Aug 6, 2009 9:00 PM EDT in Analysis Comment 21 comments

Looking at the Colts running game through the last 15 years in terms of consistency, explosiveness, power and ball security interested me and went over well with all of you, so now I'm wondering about the whole league. Which teams were good in which areas. Do running games thought of as elite have weak points? Do some generally poor running games have redeeming features?

Jump for sortable ranks in totals, YPC, consistency, explosiveness, power and ball security stats for the 2008 season.

Table Notes:

Back A is the back with the highest % of team carries, Back B is any other back with over 25% of team carries.
Success Rate is the average of all the teams backs with 100+ carries, weighted by attempts.
Success Rate unavailable for Broncos since none of their 7 RBs reached 100 carries.

Team	Back A	Back B	Total Rushing	YPC	Success Rate	10+ run	20+ run	Power Success	Fumble
Giants	Brandon Jacobs	Derrick Ward	2,518	5.02	51%	25%	4.78%	62%	1.39%
Falcons	Micheal Turner	None	2,443	4.36	48%	23%	2.86%	70%	1.43%
Panthers	DeAngelo Williams	Jonathan Stewart	2,437	4.84	46.2%	27%	4.76%	79%	0.79%
Ravens	LeRon McClain	Willis McGahee	2,376	4.01	47.4%	16%	1.86%	76%	1.86%
Vikings	Adrian Peterson	Chester Taylor	2,338	4.50	45.3%	25%	4.43%	73%	2.50%
Patriots	Sammie Morris	None	2,278	4.44	49%	16%	2.14%	70%	0.78%
Titans	Chris Johnson	LenDale White	2,199	4.33	48.4%	24%	2.95%	61%	1.18%
Redskins	Clinton Portis	None	2,095	4.38	48%	13%	3.56%	69%	1.05%
Jets	Thomas Jones	None	2,004	4.75	54%	20%	2.61%	61%	2.13%
Raiders	Justin Fargas	Darren McFadden	1,987	4.33	40.6%	17%	2.61%	62%	2.40%
Dolphins	Ronnie Brown	Ricky Williams	1,897	4.23	48.6%	17%	2.46%	76%	1.34%
Broncos	Micheal Pittman	None	1,846	4.81	Unavailable	17%	2.07%	70%	2.07%
Texans	Steve Slaton	None	1,842	4.27	44%	24%	3.01%	70%	2.08%
Bills	Marshawn Lynch	Fred Jackson	1,837	4.20	48.4%	16%	2.05%	62%	1.59%
Buccaneers	Warrick Dunn	Ernest Graham	1,810	4.07	46.8%	18%	1.77%	65%	1.33%
Chiefs	Larry Johnson	None	1,810	4.78	45%	25%	3.96%	58%	2.90%
Packers	Ryan Grant	None	1,805	4.13	46%	21%	2.39%	74%	2.52%
Jaguars	Maurice Jones-Drew	Fred Taylor	1,774	4.16	43.9%	17%	2.58%	76%	1.17%
Seahawks	Julius Jones	Maurice Morris	1,768	4.24	41.7%	20%	3.12%	76%	1.68%
Chargers	LaDainian Tomlinson	None	1,726	4.10	45%	17%	2.61%	78%	0.71%
Cowboys	Marion Barber III	None	1,723	4.30	41%	22%	2.99%	68%	2.24%
Eagles	Bryan Westbrook	None	1,697	3.97	48%	17%	2.58%	55%	0.94%
Steelers	Willie Parker	Mewelde Moore	1,690	3.67	45%	15%	1.74%	64%	0.87%
Bears	Matt Forte	None	1,673	3.85	43%	17%	2.30%	63%	0.92%
Rams	Stephen Jackson	None	1,649	3.95	46%	16%	2.16%	66%	1.92%
Browns	Jamal Lewis	None	1,605	3.92	40%	15%	1.71%	59%	1.96%
49ers	Frank Gore	None	1,599	4.03	47%	13%	2.33%	52%	3.78%
Saints	Pierre Thomas	Reggie Bush/Deuce McAllister	1,594	4.01	55.8%	15%	2.26%	64%	2.01%
Bengals	Cedric Benson	Chris Perry	1,520	3.62	36.4%	12%	1.67%	56%	2.38%
Lions	Kevin Smith	None	1,332	3.78	44%	19%	2.56%	71%	2.27%
Colts	Joseph Addai	Dominic Rhodes	1,274	3.44	48.5%	09%	1.35%	62%	1.08%
Cardinals	Tim Hightower	Edgerrin James	1,178	3.46	40.4%	15%	1.47%	58%	1.47%

Shockingly the Colts running game was actually good at a few things. Dom and Addai gave the O a very good number of managable down and distances and rarely coughed up the football. The issues with the run game? Laughably little explosiveness and mediocre performance in power situations.

Looking at the outliers,

The Niners had serious issues holding onto the football, weren't good in power situations and didn't show much explosiveness. For a team led by a big name back they didn't do well.

The Panthers run game was dominant. Best power team, one of the top two most explosive along with the Giants and rarely fumbled.

Speaking of the Giants, they have a surprising breakdown. A RB stable led by the massive Brandon Jacobs had it's weakest point in the power game. They were a very consistent running game and had excellent explosiveness.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

nice work

really interesting to see how all the stats end up and which teams surprise in it. Saints as 2nd in success rate? wouldn’t have guessed that…

"If you don't [draft me], I promise you I'll come back and kick your ass for the next 15 years."

by psvirsky on Aug 6, 2009 10:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah the Saints surprised me

but Deuce (59%) and Thomas (61%) made up for Reggie Bush’s boom and bust ways (45%)

You think you notice most everything around you, but in reality you're nearly blind to everything outside of your current focus. Hilarious example.
Another

by shake n bake on Aug 6, 2009 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i just don't take the time

to understand any of that. So i’ll just pretend…

Yes. interesting. Saints…panthers…colts….running. success power fumble rate 10+ 1987 red 18 blue 99 left gun banana2 X middle niner set HUT!

by Colts_and_Cavs_in_09! on Aug 6, 2009 11:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

lol

I’m not going to tell anyone how they should enjoy sports. Some people just like watching the game, others like to talk about their teams and leagues, some like the storylines and drama, and people like me enjoy trying to understand what makes the game tick. That’s the great thing about sports. So many ways for so many different people to enjoy them.

You think you notice most everything around you, but in reality you're nearly blind to everything outside of your current focus. Hilarious example.
Another

by shake n bake on Aug 6, 2009 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well said

Head Cheerleader of the official Matty I Fan Club
"Im not a businessman. Ima business...man. Lemme handle my business, man" -Jay Z
"I'm trying to right my wrongs, but it's funny these same wrongs helped me write this song."- Kanye West

by Davone_Is_BessT on Aug 10, 2009 2:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

lmfao

by Davone_Is_BessT on Aug 10, 2009 2:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Awesome, once again.

I’m glad that you enjoy this. That way I can get edumacated while being lazy.

by coltsfanawalt on Aug 7, 2009 1:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

So basically...

Our running game was far better than it seemed. A high level of consistency is promising – the explosiveness is obviously lacking, but that’s one thing that can be remedied by a healthier, more experienced line able to open actual holes (and of course a Donald Brown).

We probably won’t be elite, but if this level of consistency can be combined with some big gains every now and then, the running game will be serviceable, which is more than enough for Manning to be even deadlier than last year.

Is it September yet?

by Cow of Pain on Aug 7, 2009 5:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't agree

The only thing the Colts were any good at according to the chart is not fumbling. Power Success and Success rate were about average, and everything else was basically the lowest in the entire league. Saying the running game was “far better than it seemed” seems to me like a pretty good sized overstatement.

by yellowsnow on Aug 7, 2009 7:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

the running game was not far better than it seemed. Don’t try to be optimistic. It sucked. When you can’t trust your running game to convert on 3rd and 2 either you have a problem, or the running game does.

by Colts_and_Cavs_in_09! on Aug 7, 2009 7:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like optimism

But I’m having a hard time finding any from the chart.
I’m optimistic more because of a healthy Lilja, Saturday, and Ugoh. Another year under Ugoh’s belt. Donald Brown. Pollak also gets another year. The possibility that Addai could be healthy. Yeah…they could average 5 ypc! :)

by yellowsnow on Aug 7, 2009 7:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

depends out how bad you think it seemed

I think this shows that it was significantly better than YPC makes it seem, because they were above average in two important factors that don’t go into YPC, but I wouldn’t call last years running game good by any stretch.

You think you notice most everything around you, but in reality you're nearly blind to everything outside of your current focus. Hilarious example.
Another

by shake n bake on Aug 7, 2009 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And

It shows that, while there is room for improvement, the foundations are there for that improvement to occur. Weaknesses were YPC and explosiveness, but the Colts were surprisingly above average at both Success Rate and Power. And we all knew that they would fare well in the fumble department.

With another year under the rookies’ belts, a bit more luck in the health department, and the added explosiveness that Brown appears to bring to the table, there’s no reason to think that the measurables for the Colts’ running game won’t improve across the board.

Great post Shake.

by B.P. Glass on Aug 7, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well,

Actually they were also good at getting the needed yards (according to the succes rating they were 7th in the league). The problem was that they basically never got more than barely enough – the big holes were missing, and that is a line problem more than a RB problem.

The “far better than it seemed” statement was in regards to consistency. I agree that I overstated a bit, though, but that was mostly for dramatic effect ;)

by Cow of Pain on Aug 7, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My impression og success and long gainers was

That success rate was more dependent on the OL opening the basic holes and getting the RB the first 3 yards or so, and that long gainers were more reliant on the RB’s ability to break tackles, elusiveness, speed, etc.

Taken to its extreme, a refrigerator could get three yards by just falling down and sliding a bit if the OL opens a big hole, but it’ll never rip off a 25 yarder. By contrast, that gifted freak of nature Barry Sanders managed a lot of – yard losses in his career, as well as 15-yard gainers, largely on his own, because his OL didn’t necessarily open those basic holes, so he danced around in the backfield a ton (like Addai last year, cough cough). When Sanders did pass the LOS, he was alone relying on his own talents.

I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.

by Bobman on Aug 7, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We were not quite as lame as it might seem at first

That more accurate?

Steelers were surprisingly lame. A so-so run game, oft-concussed QB, and they won the SB. I guess by not fumbling. And probably something about the D….

I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.

by Bobman on Aug 7, 2009 1:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Nice post

Just one question. How did you define success, whether a play resulted in a first down? Or, whether play resulted in an acceptable gain based on the down and distance?

For ideas on statistical analyses, email me at wolfpacksteelersfan@gmail.com.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Aug 9, 2009 4:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I believe that the formula was developed by

footballoutsiders.com. Go there for more info.

Now a proud annoyance on Stampede Blue, 18to88, Indy Football Report, and Phil B's blog.

Man, I need a life...

Random fact of the week from the empty void that is my mind: Cursed players this year (via my autograph curse): Donald Brown, Fili Moala, Jerraud Powers, Austin Collie, Terrence Taylor, and Curtis Painter.

by Cassieper on Aug 10, 2009 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks!

For ideas on statistical analyses, email me at wolfpacksteelersfan@gmail.com.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Aug 10, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No problem.

I would have looked up the formula myself, but I suffer from chronic laziness. It’s a very serious condition. Sadly, there is no cure for this condition.

Now a proud annoyance on Stampede Blue, 18to88, Indy Football Report, and Phil B's blog.

Man, I need a life...

by Cassieper on Aug 10, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs