What not to focus on this off season

[wick]

Originally Posted by SkinsandTerps

You do know football is situational right ? Going for 4th & 1 at their 40 is a much better decision than on your own 40. However if you are down 2 scores with 3 minutes left...

I'm struggling to understand what this has to do with anything that has been discussed in this thread.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by wick

You need to look at how the Giants were able to create 46 scoring opportunities to Dallas' 38.

You just said the only scoring opportunities are the ones that are taken advantage of.

[wick]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

You just said the only scoring opportunities are the ones that are taken advantage of.

You can't take advantage of an opportunity that wasn't created. How you get the ball into the end zone hardly matters. If you pass the ball from your own 20 down to the opponent's one, what difference does it make if you pass or throw the ball into the end zone as long as you score the touchdown?

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by wick

You can't take advantage of an opportunity that wasn't created. How you get the ball into the end zone hardly matters. If you pass the ball from your own 20 down to the opponent's one, what difference does it make if you pass or throw the ball into the end zone as long as you score the touchdown?

It doesn't make any difference of course, but that's not the point.

The fallacy is when you suggest that more run TD only means fewer pass TD. It doesn't. It also means fewer FG attempts (both made and missed), fewer turnovers, and fewer turnovers on downs.

[wick]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

It doesn't make any difference of course, but that's not the point.

The fallacy is when you suggest that more run TD only means fewer pass TD. It doesn't. It also means fewer FG attempts (both made and missed), fewer turnovers, and fewer turnovers on downs.

Where did I say that?

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by wick

Where did I say that?

Right here...

Originally Posted by wick

How you get the ball into the end zone hardly matters.

Every time you put the emphasis on how you score, instead of how often, you're implying that more run TD does not equal more total TD.

[wick]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

Right here...


Every time you put the emphasis on how you score, instead of how often, you're implying that more run TD does not equal more total TD.

The portion you quoted means the opposite of your interpretation. I said that how you score doesn't matter, which is what you are saying above.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by wick

The portion you quoted means the opposite of your interpretation. I said that how you score doesn't matter, which is what you are saying above.

If you agree then, then more TD improves your chances of winning, and you see this stat...

Bottom 5 Teams
Fewest Rushing TD, 2011-12 (W-L Record)
28th Cle 16 (9-23)
29th Jax 14 (7-25)
30th Kan 14 (9-23)
31st Dal 13 (16-16)
32nd StL 12 (9-22-1)

...how could you not conclude that more rushing TD would improve the team's record?

[wick]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

If you agree then, then more TD improves your chances of winning, and you see this stat...

Bottom 5 Teams
Fewest Rushing TD, 2011-12 (W-L Record)
28th Cle 16 (9-23)
29th Jax 14 (7-25)
30th Kan 14 (9-23)
31st Dal 13 (16-16)
32nd StL 12 (9-22-1)

...how could you not conclude that more rushing TD would improve the team's record?

More touchdowns would help improve Dallas' record. Whether those come via runs or passes is immaterial.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by wick

More touchdowns would help improve Dallas' record. Whether those come via runs or passes is immaterial.

Sounds like you just said rushing touchdowns help you win just as much as passing touchdowns.

[wick]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

Sounds like you just said rushing touchdowns help you win just as much as passing touchdowns.

They do. That's not the same as equating the running game to the passing game, however.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by wick

They do. That's not the same as equating the running game to the passing game, however.

No one's saying the two are equal.

Explain how rushing TD help you win as much as passing TD, but rushing does not help you win.

[visionary]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

No one's saying the two are equal.

Explain how rushing TD help you win as much as passing TD, but rushing does not help you win.

this should be Guuud

[wick]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

No one's saying the two are equal.

Explain how rushing TD help you win as much as passing TD, but rushing does not help you win.

"The rushing game" covers vastly more than a handful of plays each year that result in a rushing touchdown. The fallacy in your argument is that more rushing touchdowns does not mean more overall scoring. It simply means reallocating existing scores from the passing bucket to the rushing bucket. To have a net additive impact, you would need to create more total scoring opportunities.

[Disturbed]

It seems to me the logic is flawed in regards to rushing impact on the game. People keep quoting that "rushing" does not correlate to winning...implying that it is not as important as the passing game.

Is it possible to look at time of possession of teams that "pass" vs "run" more...? I believe that the running teams are able to keep their defenses fresher and more successful. Limit offensive opportunities of competition while wearing down their defenses. All of which should make them more successful.

Just a thought...