I wonder if, at some point, when an offense is so much better at passing than running, should it abandon the run almost altogether. On top of the general imbalance in the league, some teams are just throwing away downs when calling conventional run plays. Of course, running and passing generally play off of each other in a game-theory sense. To be successful, passing needs the threat of running, and vice versa. But sometimes, the cost of running is so high for some offenses, that it would be worth the trade-off to forfeit the unpredictability and just pass nearly every down.
It sounds crazy, but take a look at the Expected Points Added per play so far this season (through the 1pm games on Sunday 10/13). The right-most column is the pass-run split. The bigger that number, the greater the imbalance. Pay particular attention to the teams highlighted in red:
|Rank||Offense||Run EPA/P||Pass EPA/P||Pass-Run Diff|
The teams highlighted in red are a combination of very poor at running and at least decent at passing. Despite the fact that the season is young and the numbers are bound to regress, I'd bet these teams would be better off passing nearly all the time. Of course, circumstances sometimes dictate running, such as milking the clock or short yardage situations.
Some teams with big splits aren't so bad at running, like DEN and SD. It's just that they're so much better passing the ball. So I wouldn't want to see them abandon the run.
Ultimately, while offenses are generally better off mixing up play types to keep defenses honest, I wonder if some offenses pay too high a price. The trade-off of being more predictable but throwing away fewer downs might be favorable.