I'm Gonna Throw This Out There!

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

I never said how well you run doesn't matter at all, I said it matters very little. And your final statement is true if you keep in mind the priority level of each. If you devote an *inordinate* amount of resources to improving an aspect of the game that will not make much of a difference between winning and losing, you also do that at your peril.

I'm not sure it's necessarily true, even then. You've got a finite amount of practice time, you need to spend it on getting as effective as you can at the things that matter most. Only when you deem yourself as effective as you can possibly get at the high-correlation-to-victory categories should you spend time on the lower correlating categories.

And this all assumes that the time-spent-per-unit-of-efficiency-gain is equal across the board, which, of course, is probably a really bad assumption.

[CCBoy]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

I never said how well you run doesn't matter at all, I said it matters very little. And your final statement is true if you keep in mind the priority level of each. If you devote an *inordinate* amount of resources to improving an aspect of the game that will not make much of a difference between winning and losing, you also do that at your peril.

But if the connective element that transcends it all, is an aggressive and physical demeaner, then seeing to different elements also keeps focus at high levels as well. Maining momentum on that aggressive nature nurtured.

[KJJ]

Originally Posted by CCBoy

But if the connective element that transcends it all, is an aggressive and physical demeaner, then seeing to different elements also keeps focus at high levels as well. Maining momentum on that aggressive nature nurtured.

[WV Cowboy]

Originally Posted by KJJ

Well said.

[Mr_Bill]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

I never said how well you run doesn't matter at all, I said it matters very little. And your final statement is true if you keep in mind the priority level of each. If you devote an *inordinate* amount of resources to improving an aspect of the game that will not make much of a difference between winning and losing, you also do that at your peril.

I agree with every syllable of this post.

[Mr_Bill]

Originally Posted by Idgit

I'm not sure it's necessarily true, even then. You've got a finite amount of practice time, you need to spend it on getting as effective as you can at the things that matter most. Only when you deem yourself as effective as you can possibly get at the high-correlation-to-victory categories should you spend time on the lower correlating categories.

And this all assumes that the time-spent-per-unit-of-efficiency-gain is equal across the board, which, of course, is probably a really bad assumption.

With this particular team, the time should be spent on those aspects that have been preventing us from winning. Since our passing efficiency has been down this year, due mainly to turnovers, that should be our prime concern in practice.

There should be enough time left over to spend on improving the run game. Your point is valid here, though, since truly improving our run game probably means healing the injured and bringing in new personnel. However, small changes can always be made involving blocking schemes and play selection, which would not involve any great time expenditure.

[noshame]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

We're not going to get a better quarterback midseason and would have a difficult time finding a better one in the offseason.

What we need is the quarterback we have to play better, our receivers to play better, the line to pass block better, the defense to pass rush better and/or the linebackers and secondary to defend the pass better -- whatever it takes to pass better than our opponent in the game. If we do that, we will win the vast majority of our games. That's how you win in the NFL.

Agreed Adam.