Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 4:16 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Well then by your estimation BB has not thought the run game has been productive enough for the last 5 years, other then in 2008 when Cassel was the Qb and we were one of the best run teams in the league even though we had Maroney, Morris and Faulk!!! So, if BB really feels that way then why hasn't he addressed the problem?
    Posted by TrueChamp


    Obviously he thought the RB's in 08 had enough to take the ball away from Matt Cassel , who despite a valiant effort was a steep drop off from TB.  Wasn't till about week 10 that they let Cassel do anything but manage games.
    It's not like BB hasn't tried to improve the run game.  He drafted 3 RB's high during that time and got a few vets to help.
    He didn't ignore it, it just hasn't worked out yet.   ly. BJGE, Vereen, Faulk all injured.  Ridley and Woody were the only healthy ones for the most part.
    We all know how maroney worked out.  1 good year, injuries, then dancing with the stars.
     

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 4:28 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Is it a coincidence that 90% of the backs that you listed are pretty good backs?
    Posted by mthurl


    I don't think he grasps the idea yet, that if they are productive, they run.
    I guess BB wasn't clear enough on that point. LMAO
     

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 4:32 PM EDT

    In response to "Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs":
    For example; 2001: Marshall Faulk #1, Antoine Smith #2 in rushing attempts = Super Bowl for both teams, we know the result 2002: Pittman and Alstott were #1 and #2 on the list, Charlie Garner #3 = Super Bowl victory for Bucs over Raiders 2003: Stephan Davis #1, Antoine Smith #2 = Patriot victory over Carolina 2004: Corey Dillon #1, Brian Westbrook #3 = Patriot victory over Philly 2005:  Shaun Alexander #1, Willie Parker #2, Bettis #3 = Pitt SB victory over Seattle 2006: Addai #1, Rhodes#2, Thomas Jones #3, Cedric Benson #5 = Colt victory over Bears 2007: Brandon Jacobs #1, Maroney #2 : you remember 2008: Willie Parker #1, Edge James #2 = Pittsburgh win over Arizona 2009: Addai #4, Pierre Thomas #5 = Saints over Colts 2010: James Starks #1, Mendenhall #2 = Packers over Steelers 2011: Ahmad Bradshaw #1, Law Firm #4, Brandon Jacobs#5 = last season All the team's in the Super Bowl had the leading post season rusher's and were the top teams in rushing attempts per game. The only aberration amongst these stats was 2009, two dome teams. What you've proven here is that it doesn't matter what you do in the regular season, you MUST be able to run the ball in the post season as well as pass. Posted by wozzy
    Lol, merely a coincidence.
     

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 4:36 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Good point and I also think it proves what the coach said yesterday...we didn't have a guy that we could just give the ball to on third downs and expect him to pick up those tough yards. I'm pretty sure a coach like Belichick (who probably came out of the womb drawing formations) would not allow us to use so many deliberate pass formations if he/the team could run it. I think if Benny proved anything, it was that he couldn't break tackles along the line of scrimmage - which is where it's needed when the defense knows you're going to run it. Give him a head of steam and he'll break those tackles -sure - but if he was met in the hole he was going down. You might say, well how many guys are capable of breaking those tackles anyways? Here's the thing, if you can't break those tackles you had better be allusive or very quick....he wasn't.
    Posted by mthurl


    I think it had as much to do with play design as execution. Few running backs break tackles at the interior of the line especially if there's no hole or if there's a LB coming in from the other side.
     

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 4:42 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Give us the postseason rankings, this means nothing?
    Posted by wozzy


    Too much work for me. Not sure what it would mean anyway? I think the lesson from these numbers is that run-dominant teams don't win Super Bowls that often. That seems pretty clear.
     

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tompenny. Show tompenny's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 4:45 PM EDT

    Stop the pass and pass well on offense and win in the regular season and playoffs. Period. It's been the most dominating factor in wins in losses throughout the histor on the NFL. Have a top rush defense and top rushing attack...not even remotely the same success.
     

  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from CliffordWasHere. Show CliffordWasHere's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 4:45 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : I don't think he grasps the idea yet, that if they are productive, they run. I guess BB wasn't clear enough on that point. LMAO
    Posted by pezz4pats


    Worked great in 2010 with BJGE and Woodhead rushing for upwards of 1700 yards combined. Too bad Brady's INT in the playoffs and panicked leadership led to more passing than running in the second half, barely trailing in the game.

    I guess BB was clear on the point. LMAO

    Your way DOESN'T WORK!

    I could see if our offense was guaranteed to put up 20+ points with your approach, but guess what? It doesn't!

    See SB 42, 46, amongst other pathetic offensive gamecalling and management for evidence.    Get back to that videogame, Pezzie.   You can throw as much as you want in fantasy world.

    lol
     

  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 4:45 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Too much work for me. Not sure what it would mean anyway? I think the lesson from these numbers is that run-dominant teams don't win Super Bowls that often. That seems pretty clear.
    Posted by Muzwell


    I don't think anyone has ever said they want us to be run dominant have they?
     

  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 4:47 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Too much work for me. Not sure what it would mean anyway? I think the lesson from these numbers is that run-dominant teams don't win Super Bowls that often. That seems pretty clear.
    Posted by Muzwell


    I just did the work for you, the only teams that didn't run much and went to the Super Bowl were the two that played each other in 2009.  It wasn't all that much work either... and believe me when I say I'm as lazy as they come.
     

  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 4:47 PM EDT

    In response to "Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs":
    For example; 2001: Marshall Faulk #1, Antoine Smith #2 in rushing attempts = Super Bowl for both teams, we know the result 2002: Pittman and Alstott were #1 and #2 on the list, Charlie Garner #3 = Super Bowl victory for Bucs over Raiders 2003: Stephan Davis #1, Antoine Smith #2 = Patriot victory over Carolina 2004: Corey Dillon #1, Brian Westbrook #3 = Patriot victory over Philly 2005:  Shaun Alexander #1, Willie Parker #2, Bettis #3 = Pitt SB victory over Seattle 2006: Addai #1, Rhodes#2, Thomas Jones #3, Cedric Benson #5 = Colt victory over Bears 2007: Brandon Jacobs #1, Maroney #2 : you remember 2008: Willie Parker #1, Edge James #2 = Pittsburgh win over Arizona 2009: Addai #4, Pierre Thomas #5 = Saints over Colts 2010: James Starks #1, Mendenhall #2 = Packers over Steelers 2011: Ahmad Bradshaw #1, Law Firm #4, Brandon Jacobs#5 = last season All the team's in the Super Bowl had the leading post season rusher's and were the top teams in rushing attempts per game. The only aberration amongst these stats was 2009, two dome teams. What you've proven here is that it doesn't matter what you do in the regular season, you MUST be able to run the ball in the post season as well as pass. Posted by wozzy
    The teams in the SB played more games than anyone else that's why they have the most yards, attempts, and everything else. Wouldn't attempts per game make more sense.
     

  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from CliffordWasHere. Show CliffordWasHere's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 4:50 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Before I tell you that you are a complete idiot, what are these?  Are these the post season yardage rankings?
    Posted by JetMangione


    Funny how everyone who is far more intelligent than yourself, actually went to college, left home, learned things, isn't a virgin, is somehow the idiot.  That doesn't make much sense.

    People who have some culture, challenge themselves, actually read books, can maybe speak another language, etc, are the idiots. Gee, isn't that rich. Another gem from M Squared (Mangione Moron).

    When you call anyone here an idiot, we know what that means. It means you don't get it, feel insecure about that, and then lash out.

    It's no different for me spelling out WHY the Jets will fail in their approach since they brought in Tannenrube and Ryan, with you unable to face reality.  I get why you don't like my assessment of your dumb team, but that doesn't mean you can troll here in response to not accepting your embarrassing franchies's missteps.

    YOU, sir, are the idiot.  You've been hoodwinked by Woody Johnson, are jealous of Kraft, BB and Brady and have never gotten over BB leaving the Jets at the altar, very wisely.

    How's that SB ring from 2010 doing? How's the cap you said would be 140 million out of the lockout as a way for you to jusitfy your team's moronic decision making with contracts and bad drafts?

    No one is more ignorant and dumb on this board than yourself. You show it on a daily basis.

    What's disturbing is some Pats fans here align themselves with you. That's something fairly new. So, congrats, you have managed to showcase a batch of irrational Pats fans who aren't very bright, where you've been able to hitch your cart to their wagon.

    Yay!  Mangionemoron with another lost day in the unemployment line.
     

  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 4:50 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In response to "Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs": The teams in the SB played more games than anyone else that's why they have the most yards, attempts, and everything else. Wouldn't attempts per game make more sense.
    Posted by shenanigan


    The stats were comparable...
     

  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 4:58 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Obviously he thought the RB's in 08 had enough to take the ball away from Matt Cassel , who despite a valiant effort was a steep drop off from TB.  Wasn't till about week 10 that they let Cassel do anything but manage games. It's not like BB hasn't tried to improve the run game.  He drafted 3 RB's high during that time and got a few vets to help. He didn't ignore it, it just hasn't worked out yet.   ly. BJGE, Vereen, Faulk all injured.  Ridley and Woody were the only healthy ones for the most part. We all know how maroney worked out.  1 good year, injuries, then dancing with the stars.
    Posted by pezz4pats



    Ahh, he thought Maroney and Morris could handle a big load but not Benny and Ridley. I get it.

    Wake up on this one Pezz. We have the best offensive line coach in the league, maybe ever. if we choose to run the ball a lot like 04, 07, 08 and 2010(OB forced to use the run with the trade of a disgruntled Moss) we have proven we can do it, and be one of the best at it, no matter who the RB is.
     
    We just choose not to depending on who is calling the plays. BB cannot micro manage his OC's, he does not micro manage his coordinators. A great leader relies on the people around him. When you have situations out of your control(OC's leaving for promotions) you suffer.

    McD will bring back an offense with versatility. He learned from one of the best. Weiss never used talent as an excuse. it is the very reason that despite having very poor RB talent in 2003 he ran the sht out of the ball against Panthers in the SB.

    Brady,runningbacks, PA,screens,hitting the open man. That was the formula for a successful post season offense.

    Being predictable was never part of the equation.






     

  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 5:01 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : I think it had as much to do with play design as execution. Few running backs break tackles at the interior of the line especially if there's no hole or if there's a LB coming in from the other side.
    Posted by glenr

    True. Few running backs are capable of breaking tackles in the hole without gathering speed, however if they can't there is usually some other trait that makes them successful (quickness, allusiveness, etc.). Would you say Benny was allusive? Or how about quick? I'd say he was neither and I also would say he wasn't the overly powerful type.  I thought he was pretty darn good at following blocks and timing it right - I also thought he ran at a good pad level and wouldn't fumble. Some good traits, but not enough.

    Ok, so your other point was play design and execution. Now see, these are two things that Belichick's teams are unusually good at...the plays are designed well and executed. It's what makes him stand out as a coach. I didn't see a lot of guys breaking free, stuffing backs in the back field last year (guys going unblocked, etc.). I saw a back that was nothing more than average. I saw a back that didn't deserve the ball in his hands all that much, because the production of the offense would of diminished with it there. This is just MY opinion - however it is also what Belichick said yesterday.
     

  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 5:09 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Too much work for me. Not sure what it would mean anyway? I think the lesson from these numbers is that run-dominant teams don't win Super Bowls that often. That seems pretty clear.
    Posted by Muzwell


    How does this have anything to do with the ongoing debate?
     

  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 5:25 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Ahh, he thought Maroney and Morris could handle a big load but not Benny and Ridley. I get it. Wake up on this one Pezz. We have the best offensive line coach in the league, maybe ever. if we choose to run the ball a lot like 04, 07, 08 and 2010(OB forced to use the run with the trade of a disgruntled Moss) we have proven we can do it, and be one of the best at it, no matter who the RB is.   We just choose not to depending on who is calling the plays. BB cannot micro manage his OC's, he does not micro manage his coordinators. A great leader relies on the people around him. When you have situations out of your control(OC's leaving for promotions) you suffer. McD will bring back an offense with versatility. He learned from one of the best. Weiss never used talent as an excuse. it is the very reason that despite having very poor RB talent in 2003 he ran the sht out of the ball against Panthers in the SB. Brady,runningbacks, PA,screens,hitting the open man. That was the formula for a successful post season offense. Being predictable was never part of the equation.
    Posted by TrueChamp


    UgH, NO it means the RB's production in 08 were more equal to the production of Matt Cassel, not Tom Brady.  Big difference!
    Again, I said no one wants predictability, not me, not you, not BB.
    But when your backs productivity is less productive than the predictable offense, you go with what works.  If that means 50 passes a game or 50 Qb sneaks,  or 50 rushes,  you do what ever helps win the game.
    BB and the coaches have not felt the backs were productive and that PASSING has been.   This is very obvious and BB's very blunt statement should have been your wake up call.  We agree with him.  Too bad, but I believe one of the winningest coaches of all times knows when to run the ball.  Sorry you don't.
     

  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from CliffordWasHere. Show CliffordWasHere's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 9:47 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    Wake up on this one Pezz. Posted by TrueChamp


    No chance. He's proven to be long, long gone. It happens.  He's gone over the edge in delusion.   Sad, but it happens.
     

  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 10:07 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs :  Brady,runningbacks, PA,screens,hitting the open man. That was the formula for a successful post season offense.
    Posted by TrueChamp


    Not collapsing in the endgame. That was the formula for a successful post season defense.
     

  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 10:12 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : UgH, NO it means the RB's production in 08 were more equal to the production of Matt Cassel, not Tom Brady.  Big difference! Again, I said no one wants predictability, not me, not you, not BB. But when your backs productivity is less productive than the predictable offense, you go with what works.  If that means 50 passes a game or 50 Qb sneaks,  or 50 rushes,  you do what ever helps win the game. BB and the coaches have not felt the backs were productive and that PASSING has been.   This is very obvious and BB's very blunt statement should have been your wake up call.  We agree with him.  Too bad, but I believe one of the winningest coaches of all times knows when to run the ball.  Sorry you don't.
    Posted by pezz4pats


    I'm just surprised people still don't get it, I mean here the coach comes right out and says why he didn't run it as much...and people still don't get it???
     

    If we pound Ridley 50 times a game right up the middle - with no variation whatsoever - it will be because Belichick thinks it's the best way to win. Period. The people that think he doesn't have control of what they're doing in any facet of this team are delusional. He does what is best for the TEAM....he's done it since he first got here...he hasn't changed that.

    There's a reason we didn't run it enough last year, it's because we weren't good enough at it. It wasn't because we didn't try it enough, it was because the guys running the ball were nothing special...the QB was. I'm sure Bill would love balance and the ability to close games out with a running game; the truth is we didn't have that...who knows? Maybe we will this year and things will be different.
     

  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 10:16 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : How does this have anything to do with the ongoing debate?
    Posted by TrueChamp


    There really is no ongoing debate. What there is are 2-4 numbskulls who won't admit when they have been destroyed with facts regarding their idiotic whine that they think they can coach better than BB.
     

  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 10:20 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Too much work for me. Not sure what it would mean anyway? I think the lesson from these numbers is that run-dominant teams don't win Super Bowls that often. That seems pretty clear.
    Posted by Muzwell


    It would mean absolutely nothing. Because BB himself could log in here and tell these imbeciles our running game was used as best as it could be and even that wouldn't convince them that they don't know better than him.
     

  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 10:21 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : There really is no ongoing debate. What there is are 2-4 numbskulls who won't admit when they have been destroyed with facts regarding their idiotic whine that they think they can coach better than BB.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    Amazing, isn't it? Out of all the arguments that have gone on here over the last few years I cannot think of one case were the coach actually tells people why this team hasn't been running as much as it used to. I mean...has there ever been something so clear cut and dried? Is this not enough? What else is needed? Do we need BJGE to come to our pool party with Belichick and tell us to our faces that we didn't have runners worthy of taking the ball out of the passing game's hands? 
     

  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 10:36 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Amazing, isn't it? Out of all the arguments that have gone on here over the last few years I cannot think of one case were the coach actually tells people why this team hasn't been running as much as it used to. I mean...has there ever been something so clear cut and dried? Is this not enough? What else is needed? Do we need BJGE to come to our pool party with Belichick and tell us to our faces that we didn't have runners worthy of taking the ball out of the passing game's hands? 
    Posted by mthurl


    Fact after fact after fact has been presented. Every statement verifies the same. And common sense tells everyone with a whit of sense that if running more in any instance would work better BB has enough brains to demand that.

    But still, the same persons harp and bemoan the lack of acumen on the part of BB and staff to do what this tawdry collection of football geniuses know is best.

    BB has forgotten more about this game than the paltry lot of them combined will ever know.
     

  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 10:43 PM EDT

    In response to "Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs":
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : The stats were comparable... Posted by wozzy
    I don't see how, the teams that played in the SB had more pass attempts than anyone else also- for the same reason.
     

  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    posted at 8/14/2012 10:48 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Fact after fact after fact has been presented. Every statement verifies the same. And common sense tells everyone with a whit of sense that if running more in any instance would work better BB has enough brains to demand that. But still, the same persons harp and bemoan the lack of acumen on the part of BB and staff to do what this tawdry collection of football geniuses know is best. BB has forgotten more about this game than the paltry lot of them combined will ever know.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    It's obvious.  They think the winningest coach in the Nfl @ 80% should be at 100% and they know just how to do that..
    Poor BB was almost 100% in 07.  If only he had listened.  Dam him!