Run the Football and Play Great Defense?

Well, those statistics certainly support that philosophy. I think it generally rings true for both high school and college football. However the NFL has become such a QB and passing game driven league, you're finding now that the teams that win the whole thing are usually the ones with the hottest passing game.

Coach

I think what these numbers show is simply the result of the more physically dominant team (more players who are bigger/stronger/faster) winning the game, and as such that team was able to :
1-physically move opponents against their will (run blocking)
2-resist the opponents attempt to move them against their will.

I do not think this necessarily reflects a schematic or philosophic superiority, but rather the fact that at the HS level, being the bigger stronger faster kid is more important. When Evangel was at its zenith, they were bigger, stronger, faster...and chose to throw the ball. Destrehan was bigger, stronger, faster...and chose to throw the ball.

I am not saying that throwing the ball cannot win championships because obviously it has been done. I will stand by the fact that consistently playing good d will put you in better position and as a defensive minded coach my number one priority is stopping the run (whether its a spread team or a wing-t team)...I live by the "run the ball play good d" ( we run the DW and play cov.1 most of the time) philosophy and we made state championship game this year (small school in NM) however, I have yet to have been blessed with a QB that is just that good that I trust him to chunk everywhere. maybe if that day comes i will be more open to that idea

most high school teams - heck, most college teams - are still on the higher side of 50% run.

when you think of oregon, what do you think of? spread? speed? no huddle? do you think of top 5 rushing team in the country?

when you think of stanford what do you think of? power? ground & pound? do they seem to run the ball more than oregon? do they throw it more than oregon?

i'm not sure what the topic here really is, but the overwhelming # of HS teams - good or bad - will be at least 50% run - with most being closer to 60. so, yes, you must be able to run the ball, I guess. however, it doesn't hurt to be able to throw it when you want to either - hence, many of the teams that can compete on the big levels can throw it effectively, usually upwards of 40%

Has anybody seen a bad predominantly passing team? I mean how bad do you want to get beat?

The running clock for high school football in Michigan begins at the start of the second half with a 35 point deficit.

I can only imagine how many running clock situations those predominantly passing teams would be in if they could not execute. It would extend the game early and their opposition would distance themselves.

Those poor executing passing teams would get beat horribly and then the game would end quickly with a running clock.

Not a surprise to me. Get the fingers in the turf and get physical!!

In the NFL the penalties have also changed strategies. A long incompletion with a DPI or a roughing the passer is as good as a completion, and they call those penalties so liberally you may as well take your chances. Conversely hardly any penalties get called on running plays.

I have been thinking about this since the thread started & I think we need to look deeper than run the ball play great defense to what does this type of philosophy do to the opposition?
In theory it should: control ball, increase time of possession, limit turn overs and losses for big yardage (ie: sacks vs a 1 yard run for a loss). This then should leave the opposition with less time to move the ball, or long fields and this also speaks to a more physical in your face style of football which then means you are in theory wearing down the other team. By eating clock you have now shortened games you can close out a half or a game easier.

If this is the case there are plenty of teams doing just this except using the screen game. I think there is more than 1 way to skin a cat here. If your goal is to control the ball / time of possession game and play great defense you can do this by displacing the ball in other ways.

Also comparing the NFL to what most of us coach is like comparing my Jeep to our neighbors Maserati. In HS you still need to be able to pass the ball or atleast have the threat of passing it to some degree. It is interesting we have a school in our area that has a long tradition of winning and people associate them with running the ball all the time. I have a coach on staff who played there in their hayday and his comment to me this year was: "everyone thinks we just ran the ball, but we didn't we ran the ball really well & that forced teams to play the run so hard but we passed a whole bunch but it was all to compliment the run game"

Look at Mondays national championship game...

Notre Dame and Alabama...What do you think of?
Hard Nose run game and tough defense...

Look at last years Game -Alabama v LSU... Same thing

Year Before Auburn v Oregon - Both teams were tops in the nation that year in running the ball... You call them spread... But they ran the ball..

Not bashing Air Raid 5 wide spread.. But you are not finding those teams in that game.

Like Huey said.. Yeah you run but you also HAVE to throw too. But yes I believe physical football (Running the ball, Stopping the run, creating turnovers, not turning the ball over) will win you a lot more games.
In todays game you can do it a lot of different ways..

win however you can, but these teams dominated through the season because of the manchilds they have on the roster. These statistics would simply be evidence not causational to their W/L.


Karr over Neville

Win by overcoming your opponent with efficiency...what is the easiest way for your team to remain consistent and not convert downs? More consistent performances are usually the product of execution, which is the product of drilling fundamentals and/or superior athleticism (athleticism can overcome technique). The end of the day is getting in the end zone more than your opponent. Running the ball won't inherently get you in the end zone any faster or better than throwing it. You're making this too simple of an assertion. There isn't any magic here.

The challenge becomes, what if you are very conservative on offense and play to win the game on defense? What happens when that one time your opponent scores on your D, how does your defense manufacture a touchdown without a possession? You need an offense that is doing something too. The bottom line is advancing downs against your opponents defense and you can consistently do that running or passing.

Run the ball, Play great defense AND win the turnover margin.

that's perfect right there

I totally agree - and that's where I was trying to get and just did a bad job of expressing it. It just seems that fans what to see shootouts and throwing the ball all over the field and no one playing defense. But history seems to support that running the ball (whether it be Spread, I-formation, Wing-T, etc.) while having the ability to throw when needed, and playing good defense, and I'll add (as suggested) to win the turnover ratio.

Also brophy, I disagree with you about the LA teams having manchildren - Curtis maybe, but I know OCS and Parkview have just you're average kids you'd find anywhere, they're just EXTREMELY well coached and the kids play in the same system from little league to high school. I know little about Rummel. Curtis is Curtis, and Karr is a charter school with a RB that played at 3 schools in a four-year career, so....we won't even go there....

I think the reason you don't see air raid type teams playing in as many championships has more to do with the fact these teams don't believe they have the personnel to compete and have to do something "different" in order to give themselves a chance. If this is true, then they are already at a disadvantage and that's why they don't win championships. However, Northwestern and Byrnes in SC have recently won rings throwing it all over the place