Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Interesting Rushing Stats...


KDawg

Recommended Posts

It's definite we need a rushing attack to win games...

Check these stats out from the past 20 years:

'83 Riggins 1347 yards 14-2 record

'84 Riggins 1239 yards 11-5 record

'85 Rogers 1093 yards 10-6 record

'86 Rogers 1203 yards 12-4 record

'87 Rogers 612 yards 11-5 record

'88 Bryant 498 yards 7-9 record

'89 Riggs 834 yards 10-6 record

'90 Byner 1219 yards 10-6 record

'91 Byner 1048 yards 14-2 record

'92 Byner 998 yards 9-7 record

'93 Brooks 1063 yards 4-12 record

'94 Ervins 650 yards 3-13 record

'95 Allen 1309 yards 6-10 record

'96 Allen 1353 yards 9-7 record

'97 Allen 724 yards 8-7-1 record

'98 Allen 700 yards 6-10 record

'99 Davis 1405 yards 10-6 record

'00 Davis 1318 yards 8-8 record

'01 Davis 1432 yards 8-8 record

'02 Davis 796 yards 7-9 record

'03 Canidate *Season not finished Current Record 5-9

Now, if I did all my math correctly, and I probably didn't but....

that's a 116-76 record when one of our RB's went over 1,000 yards.

When our RB's didn't its a 66-69-1 record.

Over 1,000: .601 win percentage

Under 1,000: .485 win percentage

We all knew this already, but rushing does play an important part in our winning and losing... Granted, Reggie Brooks deflated the 1,000 yard + win % when he rushed for 1063 yards with a 4-12 record, and Byner slightly helped the under 1,000 win % by rushing for 998 for a 9-7 record. But for the most part the results are pretty consistant. You wanna win games, you need a rushing attack...

Anyways, just thought I'd share as I was browsing NFLarchives.com and noticed a trend. Feel free to find flaws in this theory, just thought I'd post it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While an interesting post, I think what you've neglected to do is account for the changes in the NFL over the last decade or so and especially since free agency has come about. While our record certainly has historically been better with a 1,000-yard back, since the league has become more of a passing league the last 10 years, we've had five years with a 1,000 yard back and we're 45-51.

So, running is important, but so is something else, because even when we've had it of late, we've not been overly successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SonnyJ

My problem with this is that you are implying a cause and effect relationship here. Since the team ran the ball well, it succeeded.

Maybe the success in rushing was a by-product of being an overall good team?

perhaps it is, or perhaps running the ball well made the team overall better... I dunno... I wasn't really sure I was proving anything by posting this, I just wanted to show it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...