FalcFans Forums

I haven't looked up the stats yet but it would be interesting to know the teams that have won the Super Bowl what the balance of pass vs run was.I mention this because even in this preseason it doesn't look like the falcon's will pass as often as I wish.I know with preseason you can't tell alot of the times but if the Falcon's are going to win a super bowl is there a recipe for success or does it just depend on the organization's philopshy of just a running team or passing team with not nearly the balance as I think.

Back in the 49er days with Steve Young I rememeber a comment by a commentator saying that even with steve young and the great passing attack they ran the ball as much as they passed.Well,if I don't get a chance to look up the stats I hope someone could do this,finding out what percentage of passing vs running the Super Bowl winners had.

That would be an interseting stat for sure. The Falcons being a run first team would seem to have a hard time playing "catch-up" if forced to throw the ball every down. That has to change IMO.

I do know one thing though, and it's defense that wins championships. Our scheme is good, but I think we are one hard hitting safety and one other above average CB away....

Ask and ye shall receive.

I basically headed over the Pro Football Reference.com, which is a great resource BTW and looked up the stats for the two teams played in the super bowl since 1994 (the 49ers last one), and looked up their passing attempts vs. rushing attempts for the season. And the did the % of each based on the total.

With 1 exception, whichever team that has been more balanced than the other, has won the Super Bowl since 1994. So that means 10 of the last 11 Super Bowl winners have been the team that best excels at both running and receiving. The lone exception was in 1999, where the Titans were a more balanced attack and lost to the Rams. Technically, another exception was 2003, but the numbers between the Patriots and Panthers are so close, I don't really count it. We're talking like 0.2% difference, too small to matter. Basically, the Panthers and Pats were equal in terms of offensive balance.

Here are the numbers:

2004 - RUn %, Pass %

Patriots - 51.9%, 48.1%
Eagles - 40.7%, 59.3%

2003

Patriots - 46.8%, 53.2%
Panthers - 53.1%, 46.9%

2002

Bucs - 42.2%, 57.8%
Raiders - 40.1%, 59.9%

2001

Patriots - 49.5%, 50.5%
Rams - 43%, 57%

2000

Ravens - 50.3%, 49.7%
Giants - 48.9%, 51.1%

1999

Rams - 44.8%, 55.2%
Titans - 46.6%, 53.4%

1998

Broncos - 51.7%, 48.3%
Falcons - 54.9%, 45.1%

1997

Broncos - 50.3%, 49.7%
Packers - 46.7%, 53.3%

1996

Packers - 45.9%, 54.1%
Patriots - 40.5%, 59.5%

1995

Cowboys - 50.1%, 49.9%
Steelers - 45.5%, 54.5%

1994

49ers - 49%, 51%
Chargers - 48%, 52%

Okay, now I consider a balance team one that runs/passes between 49-51% of the time. A passing team is then one that throws more than 51% of the time, and a running team is one that runs more than 51%. So here are the records for each teams in the Super Bowl

BALANCED

5-0

RUNNING

2-2

PASSING

4-9

So from those numbers alone, it would seem that the old mantra of running the ball gets you greater success. But it's interesting that the two teams that most epitomized running teams (1998 Falcons, 2003 Panthers), both lost their Super Bowls.

The average Super Bowl winner ran the ball 48.4% of the time, and passed 51.6% of the time. The average Super Bowl loser ran 46.2% of the time, and passed 53.8% of the time. Once again, pointing out that it is better to run than pass. But it would seem that if you pass very well, you can still win as long as you play another passing team (as the case with the 2002 Bucs and 1999 Rams).

Want to know what the Falcons percentages were in 2004:

RUN = 57% or 32.8 times per game
PASS = 43% or 24.7 times per game

And to get into that sweet spot, it means maybe 2-5 less runs and 2-5 more passes per game. And you know what, based on what I'm seeing thus far in the preseason, I think that's going to happen, at least early on the season. If it continues later int he year will depend solely on how effective it is early on.

Great research Pudge on getting those stats.This backs up what I was thinking you have to have nearly a balanced attack to win a super bowl.The Falcon's are not even close and until Vick learns to pass it will be the same thing as last year.You should put this info over at Falcon Roost to see what those guys think it would make for a good debate.Cyril thinks from what I can tell just a break here there and will be in the Super Bowl.Making it is one thing winning it is something else with the powerful AFC team.

What we need to do at this point is simply get our passing game up enough to back teams off a bit so we aren't handcuffed like we were in Philly. Once that happens, the sky is the limit...

Very true Cap, but remember we had crap field position in that game which really let them take a chance on the blitz. Great research Pudge, you rock.

MF1

The philly game would have been totally different if we could have managed to punt the ball more than 5 yards at a time. Not that I disagree thatwe need to find balance in our offense. As soon as DB's respect Vicks arm as well as his legs he could be unstopable.

Pudge, great work, but two points:

1) PFR does not track sacks, so teams that give up a lot of sacks (like the 1998 Falcons) will look slightly more run-heavy than they really are.

2) There's a bit of a chicken-or-egg question between running and winning. Do teams that run the ball win more? Or is it that teams get ahead and then run a lot? Although now that I think about it, this study is only looking at teams that won, so I guess this point has no point after all.

However, if we had been able to pass more successfully, we could have scored or at least been in a better position to punt than where we were right? All of it works hand in hand...