Once again....lack of a running game

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnnyV219. Show JohnnyV219's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    Brandon Jacobs is going to request a trade..anyone here think he would look good in a pats uniform??  I think he would..
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BS10FAN. Show BS10FAN's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]LT runs for 76 yards. S Green runs for 52. BGJE gets 10 carries for 19 yards. Taylor? 5 for 11 yards. 1.9 and 2.2 YPC respectively. Faulk gets 5 for 22.  Pitiful.  Want to know why Sanchez did well (besides Butler)? He had a running game to open things up. LT couldn't believe the Patriots let him look like he was 24 again!  So, Brady passes to Moss. Again. And again. Why oh why didn't we utilize our new weapons of Hernandez and Gronkowski along with Tate? Hernandez looked like he'd be doing something but, then he is forgotten. Have to throw to Moss you know. "Revis Island" and all that.  Welker, Hernandez, Gronk, Crumpler....even Tate were essentially ignored. I longed to see Hernandez in the backfield with Welker in the slot and Gronk and Crumpler on each end with Moss or Tate wide. Nope. Let's just throw it to Randy. Keep trying. 1st Down? Let's run the ball with guys that are getting 2 YPC. I don't get it. I'm not BB but, I don't get it at all. We had weapons to keep the Jets offense off the field and we ignored them.  No game plan that I could see. Where were the new looks? The short pass game, their strength, was forgotten. It worked and worked for us before.  Looks like the same play calling as last year. Bad. Add the lack of a bruising back and defenses just focus on Moss. Why? Because they know that's what the Patriots will do. It was like Madden 2010 in a kid's hands Christmas morning.  Pathetic. Shameful. 
    Posted by mrbungle[/QUOTE]

    The colts went to the Super Bowl in the bottom five in rushing attacks..Also, the last two years they were at or close (29 or 31) to the bottom.  It is effective running that matters. This all comes back to play calling. This is predicated on the timing as you well know.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]The running game looked pretty good on the first drive. Fred Taylor was ripping them apart, but the play calling soon went to the spread em out variety (which sucked again).
    Posted by Rockdog1293000[/QUOTE]

    This is a very good point, we ran the ball well and mixed in the play action pass in the first quarter which was very effective.  Sometimes even if you aren't gaining a lot of positive yardage in the running game you HAVE to stick with it because the opposing defense can't commit all it's players to stopping the pass which is what the Jets did when they realized we gave up on the run.

    On a side note anyone trying to argue that the running game in football as being irrelevent is absolutely clueless.  A perfectly balanced offense is 50/50 run to pass ratio and one works because of the other, if you're next point is to explain the chicken or the egg scenerio, remember that way before the forward pass was ever invented football was ALL running. Check your history before making yourself look silly, look up the invention of the forward pass. 

    The Patriots championships were the result of a strong defense, a power running attack and good special teams play; back then Tom Brady was an efficient game manager, not Dan Marino like he's morphing into now... much to the detriment of the Patriots I might add.

    Bill O'Brien is the problem, or maybe it's the guy who hired him to do a job he's obviously not qualified or experienced enough for...  Bill hire a pro, it doesn't even count against the salary cap.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: THE PASS - THE PASS - THE PASS

    In Response to THE PASS - THE PASS - THE PASS:
    [QUOTE]The run is irrelevent to football.   Sanchez OUT-PASSED the Patriots.  The Patriots have NEVER WON ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY HAD A RUNNING GAME - not one Superbowl team had a run game that was relevant to anything, especially the Brady-era Patriots.  IT'S 100% ABOUT THE PASSING GAME.  Get off the running game because it's an outdated tactic that stopped mattering when the West Coast Offense (a passing attack) took over football.
    Posted by STP43FAN[/QUOTE]


    wrong! sanchez had all day to pass because the pats actually had to play honest d against the run. watch the game again and watch how the jets game progressed (both o and d).
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrbungle. Show mrbungle's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    STP43FAN-"Dallas' problem is they have a joke of a quarterback.  Their run game is good - and it just proves how irrelevent the run is."

    The run is irrelevant in the NFL? Because a QB is bad and they can't get it done on the RG alone? Hey, newsflash, there are 11 players on the field. A team is only as good as the sum of its parts! 

    Do you think LT's play on Sunday was "irrelevant"? Trust me, BB doesn't think so. The run game compliments the passing game and vice versa. 

    I don't get how you can actually surmise the run game is not that important. I'm willing to bet every NFL coach will tell you that having a running game is indeed, a very important part of being successful. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]STP43FAN-" Dallas' problem is they have a joke of a quarterback.  Their run game is good - and it just proves how irrelevent the run is." The run is irrelevant in the NFL? Because a QB is bad and they can't get it done on the RG alone? Hey, newsflash, there are 11 players on the field. A team is only as good as the sum of its parts!  Do you think LT's play on Sunday was "irrelevant"? Trust me, BB doesn't think so. The run game compliments the passing game and vice versa.  I don't get how you can actually surmise the run game is not that important. I'm willing to bet every NFL coach will tell you that having a running game is indeed, a very important part of being successful. 
    Posted by mrbungle[/QUOTE]

    STP43FAN seems to think everything in football occurs in a bubble, its hard to get a fantasy football mind to wrap around a concept like teamwork, 3 phases of the game or that football teams (like you said) are only as good as the sum of its parts.  Narrow focus, narrow vision that goes against the very tenets of football...  it doesn't sound like he is open to change in thought anyhow.  If he said the running game was "irrelevent" to Mike Ditka or Parcells there is a good chance he would get smacked upside the head. 

    I wish I were young enough to know everything...
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dentris. Show dentris's posts

    Re: THE PASS - THE PASS - THE PASS

    In Response to Re: THE PASS - THE PASS - THE PASS:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: THE PASS - THE PASS - THE PASS : Dallas' problem is they have a joke of a quarterback.  Their run game is good - and it just proves how irrelevent the run is.  No, it is myth.  The defense in 1976 literally carried that Steelers team.  Without Bradshaw they could not move the ball because they couldn't throw it.  Oh yes they did.  Kenny Stabler passed them to a championship, Jim Plunkett passed them to two more.  They NEVER won by running the ball.  The Packers won because their passing game won it - and you (once again) are confusing game winning effectiveness with volume stats.  Stop it, to coin a Shankism.    Oh no it isn't.  Emmitt could never win games, and his goal was never to win games to begin with - he was all about himself, his endorsement deals, and his volume stats - he became the most hated teammate in that locker room because of it (his Christmas gift to his teammates consisted of copies of his own autobiopgraphy).  The run merely wasted downs and forced Aikman to throw to win.   You're the one who is wrong about Dallas - Aikman had to win titles by the pass, not the run.  You're the one not watching the games - Deion had to be switched because Michael Irvin was suspended, and Emmitt Smith proved irrelevent to their success because that offense could not win with him running the ball (the myth is bought because they went 0-2 at the start of 1993 and the O-line refused to block for Derrick Lassic).  It wasn't until Irvin came back that they began winning again, and even after he came back Deion had to play WR far more than two to three snaps per game (he had 36 catches for 475 yards and a TD in 1996 and a game-costing INT by Aikman came on a bomb attempt for Deion against Buffalo; that was not the mark of a player who only played three snaps a game as WR).  Yes it does.  FACTS ARE FACTS and they're not on your side.
    Posted by STP43FAN[/QUOTE]

    You are absolutely crazy. Emmitt the most hated person in the locker room? O-line refusing to block for Derrick Lassic? This is made up BS. You have nothing to back up that crap. And when did "Irvin come back" in the '93 season? The Cowboys did not move Deion to WR permanently, even if he caught some balls in '96 - he was not the lead receiver or a big part of the offense. They appeased him in '95. They had Kevin Williams on the other side of Irvin. 

    Go ahead and keep talking your crap about Dallas of the 90's - you know nothing about them. All of your points are total bull. Your Emmitt assertions are wrong, plain and simple. Lets see some articles to back up your ridiculous claims.

    You are obviously Rusty, the blowhard.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from isurfvb35. Show isurfvb35's posts

    Re: THE PASS - THE PASS - THE PASS

    In Response to THE PASS - THE PASS - THE PASS:
    [QUOTE]The run is irrelevent to football.   Sanchez OUT-PASSED the Patriots.  The Patriots have NEVER WON ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY HAD A RUNNING GAME - not one Superbowl team had a run game that was relevant to anything, especially the Brady-era Patriots.  IT'S 100% ABOUT THE PASSING GAME.  Get off the running game because it's an outdated tactic that stopped mattering when the West Coast Offense (a passing attack) took over football.
    Posted by STP43FAN[/QUOTE]

    hey pink hat do your remember when we had corey dillon? antoine smith? or even curtis martin? yeah we won plenty of games with a damn good running game. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SilverSun. Show SilverSun's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    We did not adjust to Jets D in second half.  They dropped many back and only rushed 3 or 4 for the most part.  We should have gone to the running game and worked it.  We give up on the run so line and backs never get a rhythm.  We just want to keep going to Randy and Wes is not right yet.  Gronk was MIA and we need Logan back to make run blocking stronger.

    Let's also go get Larry Johnson - a real power back who can get you first downs and TD's!!!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game


    Strategy vs Execution....This is really what it comes down to and I don't think the Pats had either nailed down. It was clear when the Jets came out in the 2nd half rushing only 3 or 4, the Pats needed to change their strategy to mix in the run a bit more. They could have gone with 3 TE sets and if the Jets changed personnel, they could have split Gronk and Hernandez out wide, or in the slot. 

    So much can be done with 3 capable TE's, I just don't get why we don't run it more. Hell, bring in 3 TE's and 2 backs and run it down team's throats all day long. There is a lot we could have done out of different formations...so the strategy in the 2nd half was flawed, and we did not adjust it based on what we saw from the Jets. 

    Execution was terrible as well. And this has to fall squarely on TB's shoulders if we are in all these spread formations and having to pass first. It's up to him to pick the open guy, and as you all said, he as always, forced it to Moss...underthrew him and overthrew him. 

    This is a tough problem to fix really. I already think BB does a good bit of game planning, so I don't know why our strategy is flawed going into the 2nd half. Perhaps we have the strategy and out the window goes the execution. 


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from isurfvb35. Show isurfvb35's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game : And when they reread the history and saw that the Bart Starr Packers won because of the pass, the '72 Dolphins won because of the pass, that run teams in the SB era have just ONE playoff win while passing teams win in the playoffs every year - then you'd be the fool you've already proven yourself to be.
    Posted by STP43FAN[/QUOTE]

    ask john riggins, terrell davis, larry csonka, franco harris, marcus allen, and otis anderson that, then you would be the fool youve already proven yourself to  be.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    Wow STP43fan you couldn't have proven my point anymore than you just did...

    The 72' Dolphins had TWO one thousand yard rushers and the vaunted "No Name defense," only when Don Shula acquired Dan Marino did he become reliant on a QB and the passing attack (Marino was the first QB Shula allowed to call audibles) and for his faith in the passing game he won zero super bowl titles with the greatest passer the NFL has ever known.  PS prior to Dan Marino the greatest passer was Dan Fouts and he didn't win a ring either.  Remove foot from mouth when your ready...

    Thanks Gridlocked for trying to pound some sense into this guy's head but I think we're peeing into the wind with this one...
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from STP43FAN. Show STP43FAN's posts

    People Are STILL Insane

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]We did not adjust to Jets D in second half.  They dropped many back and only rushed 3 or 4 for the most part.  We should have gone to the running game and worked it.  We give up on the run so line and backs never get a rhythm.  We just want to keep going to Randy and Wes is not right yet.  Gronk was MIA and we need Logan back to make run blocking stronger. Let's also go get Larry Johnson - a real power back who can get you first downs and TD's!!!
    Posted by fyyankees[/QUOTE]

    Why go to the run?  It doesn't work.  Logan isn't the answer.  The answer is the Patriots need to execute better in the passing game. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from STP43FAN. Show STP43FAN's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game : ask john riggins, terrell davis, larry csonka, franco harris, marcus allen, and otis anderson that, then you would be the fool youve already proven yourself to  be.
    Posted by isurfvb35[/QUOTE]
    No, ask the history books, ask the reality that no team that establishes the run goes anywhere while the teams that throw the ball contend for titles.  That trumps whatever Marcus Allen and that bunch can say.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from STP43FAN. Show STP43FAN's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]Wow STP43fan you couldn't have proven my point anymore than you just did... The 72' Dolphins had TWO one thousand yard rushers and the vaunted "No Name defense," only when Don Shula acquired Dan Marino did he become reliant on a QB and the passing attack (Marino was the first QB Shula allowed to call audibles) and for his faith in the passing game he won zero super bowl titles with the greatest passer the NFL has ever known.   PS prior to Dan Marino the greatest passer was Dan Fouts and he didn't win a ring either.  Remove foot from mouth when your ready... Thanks Gridlocked for trying to pound some sense into this guy's head but I think we're peeing into the wind with this one...
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Wozzy falls into the trap of VOLUME STATS. 

    Here are the facts -

    1972 Dolphins - 8.63 yards per passing attempt, THE BEST IN THE LEAGUE (versus just 4.8 YPA on the ground).   Stop being blinded by the No-Name D and by the running attack - the Dolphins won by throwing the ball. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from STP43FAN. Show STP43FAN's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE] So the bottom line here, is that if we're to do anything while Brady is still playing, he's going to have to lose the Moss/Welker blinders he wears and open things up, because this D isn't going to be dominant any time soon.  If BB is such a defensive guru, then explain to me how he let this D slip into old age without retooling it until now.  We went from too old to too young pretty much overnight.  Forget the running game... if we spread the wealth around like we used to, it's just as good or better than a running game.
    Posted by manowar333[/QUOTE]

    The defense was too good for Belichick to replace the "old" guys he had - they were still outperforming any potential replacements.  It wasn't until they fell off the cliff that the defense could get younger. 
    As for "spreading the wealth" and "lose the Moss/Welker blinders" the PxP sheet shows Brady was spreading the wealth and the wealth wasn't catching the ball or gaining yardage with it - he HAD to go for Moss.
    EXECUTION, people.  It's about EXECUTION.  Gronk, Hernandez, Crumpler, etc. can execute and have done so - they need to execute more.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from STP43FAN. Show STP43FAN's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]Funny the 1972 Dolphins had a great running game with Csonka, Kiick and Morris.  In fact they ran for over 700 yards more than they passed for. They also scored 26 td's running while passing for only 17. When Griese was injured early in the season Earl Morrall relied more on the run. Those are the facts.
    Posted by gridlocked[/QUOTE]
    No, here are the facts - 8.63 YPA in the passing game, the best in the league.  You fall for the trap of volume stats by saying Czonka etc. rushed a lot, yet gained just 4.8 YPA (behind Pittsburgh, with 5.1); they won because they threw the ball well.  The run did nothing.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from gridlocked. Show gridlocked's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    The run gained 700+ more yards and 9 more TD's. That's a lot of nothing.

    They ran the ball a lot more than they passed it. Don't let reality get in the way of your argument though.

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

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game : No, here are the facts - 8.63 YPA in the passing game, the best in the league.  You fall for the trap of volume stats by saying Czonka etc. rushed a lot, yet gained just 4.8 YPA (behind Pittsburgh, with 5.1); they won because they threw the ball well.  The run did nothing.
    Posted by STP43FAN[/QUOTE]

    You didn't reply to this in another thread, so  I reposted it here. You said there has not been A SINGLE SUPERBOWL CHAMP that won because of anything other than out-passing the opponent.

    Really? Might wanna check your facts before posting such ridiculous statements. Here's a few. And there are several others. These are from 3 different eras, as well:

    SB II - Oakland "outpasses" GB and loses. GB outrushed Oakland.
    SB IV - Minnesota "outpasses" Chiefs and lose.
    SB VI - Miami "outpasses" Dallas and loses. Dallas crushes them with the run.
    SB XXVII -  Buffalo "outpasses" Dallas and loses. And get absolutely hammered.
    SB XXVIII- Buffalo "outpasses" Dallas and loses. Again.
    SB XXXX - Seattle "outpasses" Pittsburgh and loses.

    Yes, the NFL is more of a pass oriented league now than it once was, and has been for several years. But your claim that the running game has always been irrelevant (and still is) to winning is absurd.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dentris. Show dentris's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]Forget about all the 70's, 80's & 90's teams... it's irrelevant now.  over the past 10 years, one of two things win you a championship.  A great D or a great passing offense.  Here are the past 11 winners as an example. 2000... Rams... "greatest show on turf"... passing offense vs. run oriented team 2001... Ravens...  Great young D, average QB vs solid run team 2002...  Patriots...  Great D and gameplan and Brady becoming Brady, slinging the ball all over the place on the final drive. 2003...  Tampa...  good D and 2 pass-oriented offenses 2004...  Patriots... 2 solid defenses in a passing showdown in the second half. 2005...  Patriots...  Solid, but starting show age Pats D and Brady vs. a pass-oriented offense and solid D 2006...  Steelers...  GREAT D vs run oriented offense 2007...  Colts...  Pass offense vs. decent D and run-oriented offense 2008...  Giants...  Superior defense and gameplan vs. pass offense that made no half-time adjustments and forgot that you could call a screen pass once in a while...  And guess what won the game... PASSING! 2009...  Steelers...  Solid D vs. Pass offense... in fact, by '09, the Steelers were even evolving into a more pass-oriented offense and it was their passing game that ultimately won the game. 2010...  Saints...  Bombs away for 2 pass oriented offenses... The game has evolved folks.  Dink and dunk passing more than makes up for lack of a running game... the problem is that ever since Moss and Welker arrived, Brady's had tunnel vision.  I long for the days when we just had 3 serviceable receivers and Brady would go to whoever was open.  Hell, if Bug-Eyed Reche Caldwell doesn't drop a sure touchdown in the '07 AFC championship, we would've killed Chicago instead of Indy, even with that receiving corps. Look at some of the teams that didn't make it... Chargers...  All I ever heard was how they were the best team on paper going into each season... Such a great running game with LT...  How far did that get them?  How far did the Chiefs get 10 years ago with their great running game?  The '98 and '99 Broncos are the only run-oriented team that comes to mind as a Superbowl winner, and they still had a decent defense and Elway running around like a crazy man...  If you're going back to the 70's and 80's, offenses were build differently because defenses weren't so freaking big and fast, so running the ball was a much easier endeavor, but even so, the teams with the best passing attacks and best defenses, were still ultimately the winners. So the bottom line here, is that if we're to do anything while Brady is still playing, he's going to have to lose the Moss/Welker blinders he wears and open things up, because this D isn't going to be dominant any time soon.  If BB is such a defensive guru, then explain to me how he let this D slip into old age without retooling it until now.  We went from too old to too young pretty much overnight.  Forget the running game... if we spread the wealth around like we used to, it's just as good or better than a running game.
    Posted by manowar333[/QUOTE]

    Just because it doesn't come to your mind does not mean it did not happen. Check out the 70's Dolphins rushing stats vs passing stats. Harris and Bleier??Riggins? And the early 90's Dallas dynasty was built on running the ball, regardless of what BS Rusty comes up with. There are many others.

    Besides, the original argument/absurd statement made by STP43FAN/Rusty was that no team ever won the Superbowl with the run, they always "outpassed" the opponent. That is flat out wrong.

    Yes, the pass is most often the way teams move the ball now but it has not always been that way.


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from STP43FAN. Show STP43FAN's posts

    Volume Stats Aren't Truth

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]The run gained 700+ more yards and 9 more TD's. That's a lot of nothing. They ran the ball a lot more than they passed it. Don't let reality get in the way of your argument though.
    Posted by gridlocked[/QUOTE]

    gridlocked and others need to stop citing volume stats - "The run gained 700+ yards and nine more TDs."  Those are volume stats - the truth of the matter is they moved the chain with the best passing attack in the league.  That's the reality that gets in the way of your argument.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from STP43FAN. Show STP43FAN's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game : You didn't reply to this in another thread, so  I reposted it here. You said there has not been A SINGLE SUPERBOWL CHAMP that won because of anything other than out-passing the opponent. Really? Might wanna check your facts before posting such ridiculous statements. Here's a few. And there are several others. These are from 3 different eras, as well: SB II - Oakland "outpasses" GB and loses. GB outrushed Oakland. SB IV - Minnesota "outpasses" Chiefs and lose. SB VI - Miami "outpasses" Dallas and loses. Dallas crushes them with the run. SB XXVII -  Buffalo "outpasses" Dallas and loses. And get absolutely hammered. SB XXVIII-  Buffalo "outpasses" Dallas and loses. Again. SB XXXX - Seattle "outpasses" Pittsburgh and loses. Yes, the NFL is more of a pass oriented league now than it once was, and has been for several years. But your claim that the running game has always been irrelevant (and still is) to winning is absurd.
    Posted by dentris[/QUOTE]

    SB II - Green Bay threw the ball to build a lead.
    SB IV - KC outpassed Minnesota and had a lead.
    SBs Buffalo vs. Dallas - Dallas outpassed Buffalo, not the other way around; Buffalo put up volume stats, not efficiency.  Dallas' passing game outclassed Buffalo.
    SB XL - Seattle put up volume stats; Pittsburgh's passing game put up efficiency. 

    The run is irrelevent to winning; that is a fact. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from STP43FAN. Show STP43FAN's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game : Just because it doesn't come to your mind does not mean it did not happen. Check out the 70's Dolphins rushing stats vs passing stats. Harris and Bleier??Riggins? And the early 90's Dallas dynasty was built on running the ball, regardless of what BS Rusty comes up with. There are many others. Besides, the original argument/absurd statement made by STP43FAN/Rusty was that no team ever won the Superbowl with the run, they always "outpassed" the opponent. That is flat out wrong. Yes, the pass is most often the way teams move the ball now but it has not always been that way.
    Posted by dentris[/QUOTE]

    For the umpteenth time - 8.63 YPA passing outclassed Miami's 4.8 YPA rushing - they moved the chains through the air; they won through the air.  Those facts trump everything else.  The 1990s Cowboys were built to throw the ball; Emmitt Smith distorts the argument because of all his volume stats - Aikman's throwing and Irvin's catches won for Dallas, not Emmitt.  That fact trumps everything else. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dentris. Show dentris's posts

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game : SB II - Green Bay threw the ball to build a lead. SB IV - KC outpassed Minnesota and had a lead. SBs Buffalo vs. Dallas - Dallas outpassed Buffalo, not the other way around; Buffalo put up volume stats, not efficiency.  Dallas' passing game outclassed Buffalo. SB XL - Seattle put up volume stats; Pittsburgh's passing game put up efficiency.  The run is irrelevent to winning; that is a fact. 
    Posted by STP43FAN[/QUOTE]

    You are so full of crap. Forget the volume stats/efficiancy thing. That was not your original assertion. You said NO Superbowl winner ever won by rushing, that all the winners won by the pass - that they all "outpassed" their opponent. These stats are facts that the winning team was "outpassed". Plain and simple. Distort it however you like. Thats your thing.

    At least I'll admit a mistake - Buffalo was "outpassed" by Dallas in XXVII but it was because of the 4 sacks Dallas had. Actual passing yardage was B-276, D-273. Dallas did out rush them, though, but that meant nothing, right? And XXVIII was totally won with the rush in the second half. Watch a tape of the game or something because you have no clue.

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

    Re: Once again....lack of a running game

    In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Once again....lack of a running game : For the umpteenth time - 8.63 YPA passing outclassed Miami's 4.8 YPA rushing - they moved the chains through the air; they won through the air.  Those facts trump everything else.  The 1990s Cowboys were built to throw the ball; Emmitt Smith distorts the argument because of all his volume stats - Aikman's throwing and Irvin's catches won for Dallas, not Emmitt.  That fact trumps everything else. 
    Posted by STP43FAN[/QUOTE]

    Problem is, it's not a fact. Once again, you are wrong. Emmitt and the O-line were the keys to those titles. Aikman and Irvin were excellent, outstanding compliments. Everyone on the planet knows this. Except you. Just stop acting like you know everything about every team. You know nothing about the early 90's Cowboys. All your BS and made up crap (Emmitt #1 hated guy, O-line wouldn't block for Lassic, Irvin being out in 93? What??) is really disgusting.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share